Draft EIR - San Francisco Planning Department

San Francisco Public Utilities Commission 

Peninsula Pipelines Seismic Upgrade Project 

San Mateo County, California 

Public Review Draft 

Environmental Impact Report 

Volume 1 of 2 

March 2013 

Prepared for: 

San Francisco Planning Department, Environmental Planning Division 

San Francisco Planning Department Case No. 2011.0123E 

State Clearinghouse No. 2011112028 

DEIR Publication Date: March 13, 2013 

DEIR Public Comment Period: March 14, 2013 to April 29, 2013 

DEIR Public Hearing Dates: April 16, 2013, San Bruno, CA and 

April 18, 2013, San Francisco, CA

DATE: 

TO: 

FROM: 

SUBJECT: 

March13,2013 

DistributionListforthePeninsulaPipelinesSeismicUpgradeProjectDraft 

EIR 

SarahJones,ActingEnvironmentalReviewOfficer 

Request for the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Peninsula 

Pipelines Seismic Upgrade Project (Planning Department File No. 

2011.0123E) 

This is the Draft of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Peninsula Pipelines 

SeismicUpgradeProject.Apublichearingwillbeheldontheadequacyandaccuracyof 

thisdocument.Afterthepublichearing,ourofficewillprepareandpublishadocument 

titled“ResponsestoComments,”whichwillcontainasummaryofallrelevantcomments 

onthisDraftEIRandourresponsestothosecomments.Itmayalsospecifychangesto 

this Draft EIR. Those who testify at the hearing on the Draft EIR will automatically 

receiveacopyoftheResponsestoCommentsdocument,alongwithnoticeofthedate 

reservedforcertification;othersmayreceiveacopyoftheResponsestoCommentsand 

noticebyrequestorbyvisitingouroffice.ThisDraftEIRtogetherwiththeResponsesto 

CommentsdocumentwillbeconsideredbythePlanningCommissioninanadvertised 

publicmeetingandwillbecertifiedasaFinalEIRifdeemedadequate. 

After certification, we will modify the Draft EIR as specified by the Responses to 

CommentsdocumentandprintbothdocumentsinasinglepublicationcalledtheFinal 

EIR.TheFinalEIRwilladdnonewinformationtothecombinationofthetwodocuments 

excepttoreproducethecertificationresolution.Itwillsimplyprovidetheinformationin 

one document, rather than two. Therefore, if you receive a copy of the Responses to 

CommentsdocumentinadditiontothiscopyoftheDraftEIR,youwilltechnicallyhave 

acopyoftheFinalEIR. 

WeareawarethatmanypeoplewhoreceivetheDraftEIRandResponsestoComments 

have no interest in receiving virtually the same information after the EIR has been 

certified.Toavoidexpendingmoneyandpaperneedlessly,wewouldliketosendcopies 

oftheFinalEIRinAdobeAcrobatformatonacompactdisk(CD)toprivateindividuals 

onlyiftheyrequestthem.Therefore,ifyouwouldlikeacopyoftheFinalEIR,pleasefill 

outandmailthepostcardprovidedinsidethebackcovertotheEnvironmentalPlanning 

divisionofthePlanningDepartmentwithintwoweeksaftercertificationoftheEIR.Any 

privatepartynotrequestingaFinalEIRbythattimewillnotbemailedacopy.Public 

agenciesonthedistributionlistwillautomaticallyreceiveacopyoftheFinalEIR. 

Thankyouforyourinterestinthisproject. 

 

Revised10/5/12 

www.sfplanning.org


Peninsula Pipelines Seismic Upgrade Project 


Public Review Draft 


Volume 1 of 2 

March 2013 

Prepared for: 

San Francisco Planning Department, Environmental Planning Division 

San Francisco Planning Department Case No. 2011.0123E 

State Clearinghouse No. 2011112028

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

VOLUME 1 

CHAPTER 1 – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................. 1-1 

1.1 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF PROJECT .................................................. 1-1 

1.2 OVERVIEW OF SFPUC REGIONAL WATER SYSTEM ........................................ 1-1 

1.3 PROJECT BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES ...................................................... 1-2 

1.3.1 Project Background .................................................................................... 1-2 

1.3.2 Project Objectives ....................................................................................... 1-3 

1.4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................... 1-3 

1.4.1 Project Location and Components ........................................................... 1-3 

1.4.2 Project Construction .................................................................................. 1-4 

1.4.3 Project Operations ...................................................................................... 1-4 

1.5 SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ............. 1-5 

1.6 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT ................................................ 1-99 

1.7 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY ................................................................................... 1-99 

1.8 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................... 1-103 

CHAPTER 2 – INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND .................................................................. 2-1 

2.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 2-1 

2.2 BACKGROUND – REGIONAL WATER SYSTEM AND THE WATER 

SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM .................................................................... 2-1 

2.2.1 SFPUC Regional Water System Overview ............................................. 2-1 

2.2.2 SFPUC Water System Improvement Program ....................................... 2-2 

2.2.3 Regional Water System Facilities ............................................................. 2-7 

2.3 PURPOSE OF THIS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ............................... 2-7 

2.4 PUBLIC OUTREACH .................................................................................................. 2-8 

2.4.1 Notice of Preparation ................................................................................ 2-8 

2.4.2 Public Scoping Meeting ............................................................................. 2-8 

2.4.3 Public and Agency Comments on Notice of Preparation ..................... 2-8 

2.4.4 Other Community Outreach .................................................................. 2-12 

2.5 PROJECT CHANGES SUBSEQUENT TO PUBLICATION OF NOTICE 

OF PREPARATION ................................................................................................... 2-12 

2.6 ORGANIZATION OF THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 

REPORT ....................................................................................................................... 2-12 

2.7 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................. 2-13 

CHAPTER 3 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................. 3-1 

3.1 PROJECT LOCATION ................................................................................................ 3-1 

3.1.1 Colma Site ................................................................................................... 3-3 

3.1.2 South San Francisco Site ............................................................................ 3-3 

3.1.3 San Bruno North Site ................................................................................. 3-3 

3.1.4 San Bruno South Site ................................................................................. 3-7 

Page 

SFPUC Peninsula Pipelines Seismic Upgrade i Environmental Planning Case No. 2011.0123E 

Public Review Draft EIR March 2013

Table of Contents 

3.1.5 Millbrae Site ................................................................................................ 3-7 

3.1.6 Common Staging Area .............................................................................. 3-7 

3.2 PROJECT BACKGROUND ....................................................................................... 3-10 

3.3 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ...................................................................................... 3-11 

3.4 EXISTING FACILITIES ............................................................................................. 3-11 

3.5 PROPOSED PROJECT ............................................................................................... 3-12 

3.5.1 Colma Site ................................................................................................. 3-14 

3.5.2 South San Francisco Site .......................................................................... 3-16 

3.5.3 San Bruno North Site ............................................................................... 3-16 

3.5.4 San Bruno South Site ............................................................................... 3-19 

3.5.5 Millbrae Site .............................................................................................. 3-19 

3.6 SFPUC STANDARD CONSTRUCTION MEASURES .......................................... 3-22 

3.7 GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION ACTIONS ..................................................... 3-22 

3.8 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION .................................................................................... 3-22 

3.8.1 Pipeline Replacement and Stabilization................................................ 3-23 

3.8.2 Excavation and Stockpiling of Soil ........................................................ 3-27 

3.8.3 Spoils Disposal and Removal of Construction and Demolition 

Debris ......................................................................................................... 3-27 

3.8.4 Pipeline Shutdown and Startup ............................................................. 3-28 

3.8.5 Dewatering................................................................................................ 3-30 

3.8.6 Construction Staging and Spoils Areas................................................. 3-30 

3.8.7 Site Access and Construction Vehicle Routes ...................................... 3-32 

3.8.8 Project Workforce and Construction Vehicle Parking ........................ 3-34 

3.8.9 Construction Schedule and Equipment ................................................ 3-34 

3.9 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE .................................................................. 3-36 

3.10 REQUIRED PERMITS ............................................................................................... 3-36 

3.10.1 Federal ....................................................................................................... 3-36 

3.10.2 State ............................................................................................................ 3-38 

3.10.3 Local ........................................................................................................... 3-38 

3.10.4 Other Actions ............................................................................................ 3-39 

3.11 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................. 3-39 

CHAPTER 4 – PLANS AND POLICIES ................................................................................................ 4-1 

4.1 OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................... 4-1 

4.2 PLANS AND POLICIES RELEVANT TO THE PPSU PROJECT .......................... 4-1 

4.2.1 City and County of San Francisco Plans and Policies ........................... 4-1 

4.2.2 SFPUC Plans and Policies ......................................................................... 4-4 

4.2.3 Other Land Use Plans and Policies .......................................................... 4-6 

4.3 PLAN CONSISTENCY EVALUATION .................................................................... 4-8 

4.3.1 Approach to Analysis ................................................................................ 4-8 

4.3.2 Consistency with San Francisco Plans and Policies .............................. 4-9 

4.3.3 Consistency with SFPUC Plans and Policies ........................................ 4-10 

4.3.4 Consistency with Other Land Use Plans and Policies ........................ 4-11 

4.4 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................. 4-12 

CHAPTER 5 – ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES . 5.1-1 

5.1 OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................ 5.1-1 

SFPUC Peninsula Pipelines Seismic Upgrade ii Environmental Planning Case No. 2011.0123E 



5.1.1 Scope of Analysis .................................................................................... 5.1-1 

5.1.2 Significance Determinations .................................................................. 5.1-2 

5.1.3 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................... 5.1-3 

5.1.4 References .............................................................................................. 5.1-10 

5.2 LAND USE AND LAND USE PLANNING .......................................................... 5.2-1 

5.2.1 Setting ....................................................................................................... 5.2-1 

5.2.2 Regulatory Framework .......................................................................... 5.2-4 

5.2.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ........................................................ 5.2-4 

5.2.4 References .............................................................................................. 5.2-15 

5.3 AESTHETICS ............................................................................................................. 5.3-1 

5.3.1 Setting ....................................................................................................... 5.3-1 

5.3.2 Regulatory Framework ........................................................................ 5.3-21 

5.3.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ...................................................... 5.3-22 

5.3.4 References .............................................................................................. 5.3-33 

5.4 POPULATION AND HOUSING ............................................................................ 5.4-1 

5.4.1 Setting ....................................................................................................... 5.4-1 



5.4.4 References ................................................................................................ 5.4-3 

5.5 CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES ................................... 5.5-1 

5.5.1 Setting ....................................................................................................... 5.5-1 



5.5.4 References .............................................................................................. 5.5-32 

5.6 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION ........................................................ 5.6-1 

5.6.1 Setting ....................................................................................................... 5.6-1 



5.6.4 References .............................................................................................. 5.6-41 

5.7 NOISE ......................................................................................................................... 5.7-1 

5.7.1 Setting ....................................................................................................... 5.7-1 



5.7.4 References .............................................................................................. 5.7-52 

5.8 AIR QUALITY ........................................................................................................... 5.8-1 

5.8.1 Setting ....................................................................................................... 5.8-1 



5.8.4 References .............................................................................................. 5.8-28 

SFPUC Peninsula Pipelines Seismic Upgrade iii Environmental Planning Case No. 2011.0123E 



5.9 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS .......................................................................... 5.9-1 

5.9.1 Setting ....................................................................................................... 5.9-1 



5.9.4 References .............................................................................................. 5.9-10 

5.10 WIND AND SHADOW ......................................................................................... 5.10-1 

5.10.1 Setting ..................................................................................................... 5.10-1 



5.10.4 References .............................................................................................. 5.10-3 

5.11 RECREATION ......................................................................................................... 5.11-1 

5.11.1 Setting ..................................................................................................... 5.11-1 



5.11.4 References .............................................................................................. 5.11-9 

5.12 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS .................................................................. 5.12-1 

5.12.1 Setting ..................................................................................................... 5.12-1 



5.12.4 References ............................................................................................ 5.12-18 

5.13 PUBLIC SERVICES ................................................................................................. 5.13-1 

5.13.1 Setting ..................................................................................................... 5.13-1 



5.13.4 References .............................................................................................. 5.13-5 

5.14 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES .................................................................................. 5.14-1 

5.14.1 Setting ..................................................................................................... 5.14-1 

5.14.2 Regulatory Framework ...................................................................... 5.14-23 

5.14.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures .................................................... 5.14-31 

5.14.4 References ............................................................................................ 5.14-56 

5.15 GEOLOGY AND SOILS ......................................................................................... 5.15-1 

5.15.1 Setting ..................................................................................................... 5.15-1 



5.15.4 References ............................................................................................ 5.15-30 

5.16 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ............................................................ 5.16-1 

5.16.1 Setting ..................................................................................................... 5.16-1 



5.16.4 References ............................................................................................ 5.16-25 

SFPUC Peninsula Pipelines Seismic Upgrade iv Environmental Planning Case No. 2011.0123E 



5.17 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ................................................. 5.17-1 

5.17.1 Setting ..................................................................................................... 5.17-1 



5.17.4 References ............................................................................................ 5.17-28 

5.18 MINERAL AND ENERGY RESOURCES ............................................................ 5.18-1 

5.18.1 Setting ..................................................................................................... 5.18-1 



5.18.4 References .............................................................................................. 5.18-8 

5.19 AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES.................................................... 5.19-1 

5.19.1 Setting ..................................................................................................... 5.19-1 



5.19.4 References .............................................................................................. 5.19-5 

CHAPTER 6 – OTHER CEQA ISSUES .................................................................................................. 6-1 

6.1 GROWTH INDUCEMENT ......................................................................................... 6-1 

6.1.1 Approach to Analysis ................................................................................ 6-1 

6.1.2 Growth Inducement Analysis .................................................................. 6-1 

6.2 SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE IMPACTS .............................................................. 6-2 

6.3 SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS THAT CANNOT BE 

AVOIDED IF THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED ............................ 6-4 

6.4 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES ....................... 6-4 

6.5 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 6-5 

CHAPTER 7 – ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................................................ 7-1 

7.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 7-1 

7.2 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS ..................................................................................... 7-2 

7.2.1 Project Objectives ....................................................................................... 7-3 

7.2.2 Overview of the Project’s Potentially Significant and 

Significant Impacts ..................................................................................... 7-3 

7.2.3 Alternative 1 – No Project Alternative .................................................... 7-5 

7.2.4 Alternative 2 – Sliplining Alternative ................................................... 7-15 

7.3 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES ..................................................................... 7-29 

7.3.1 Comparison of Environmental Impacts ................................................ 7-29 

7.3.2 Environmentally Superior Alternative ................................................. 7-34 

7.4 ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFICATION AND SCREENING .................................. 7-35 

7.5 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED FROM FURTHER 

CONSIDERATION .................................................................................................... 7-35 

7.5.1 Steel Pipe Inside a Corrugated Metal Pipe Alternative (San 

Bruno South and Millbrae Sites) ............................................................ 7-36 

7.5.2 Pipe with Pre-Formed Bulge Zone inside a Corrugated Metal 

Pipe Alternative (San Bruno South and Millbrae Sites) ...................... 7-37 

SFPUC Peninsula Pipelines Seismic Upgrade v Environmental Planning Case No. 2011.0123E 



7.5.3 Fiber-Wrap Pipe Joints and Encase Pipe Bends Alternative 

(Millbrae Site) ........................................................................................... 7-38 

7.5.4 Isolation Valves Alternative (Millbrae Site) ......................................... 7-38 

7.5.5 Welded Steel Pipe Alternative (San Bruno North and San 

Bruno South Sites) .................................................................................... 7-38 

7.5.6 Relocation Alternative (All Project Sites) .............................................. 7-39 

7.6 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................. 7-40 

CHAPTER 8 – EIR AUTHORS AND CONSULTANTS ...................................................................... 8-1 

8.1 EIR AUTHORS ............................................................................................................. 8-1 

8.2 EIR CONSULTANTS ................................................................................................... 8-1 

8.3 PROJECT SPONSOR ................................................................................................... 8-3 

SFPUC Peninsula Pipelines Seismic Upgrade vi Environmental Planning Case No. 2011.0123E 



TABLES 

Table 1-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures....................................................... 1-6 

Table 1-2 Comparison of Significant Impacts of the PPSU Project to Impacts of 

Alternatives ............................................................................................................... 1-100 

Table 2-1 Summary of Scoping Comments ............................................................................... 2-9 

Table 3-1 Proposed Project Sites ............................................................................................... 3-13 

Table 3-2 Project Materials Transport ...................................................................................... 3-26 

Table 3-3 Discharge Estimates ................................................................................................... 3-29 

Table 3-4 Proposed Construction Staging Areas .................................................................... 3-31 

Table 3-5 Construction Duration at Each Site ......................................................................... 3-34 

Table 3-6 Typical Construction Activities and Equipment ................................................... 3-37 

Table 5.1-1 Cumulative Project List ............................................................................................ 5.1-6 

Table 5.2-1 Summary of Impacts – Land Use and Land Use Planning ................................. 5.2-6 

Table 5.3-1 Gateways and Scenic Corridors .............................................................................. 5.3-3 

Table 5.3-2 Summary of Impacts – Aesthetics......................................................................... 5.3-24 

Table 5.4-1 Population and Housing Data (2010) ..................................................................... 5.4-1 

Table 5.5-1 Paleontological Sensitivity Ratings for Geologic Rock Units within the 

PPSU C-APE ............................................................................................................ 5.5-12 

Table 5.5-2 Historic Architecture Eligibility Status ................................................................ 5.5-16 

Table 5.5-3 Summary of Impacts – Cultural Resources ......................................................... 5.5-23 

Table 5.5-4 Impact Potential to Paleontological Resources for Geologic Rock Units 

within the C-APE .................................................................................................... 5.5-28 

Table 5.6-1 Daily Traffic Volumes on Regional Facilities ........................................................ 5.6-4 

Table 5.6-2 Daily Traffic Volumes on Local Roadways ........................................................... 5.6-5 

Table 5.6-3 Level of Service Definitions for Signalized and Unsignalized 

Intersections ............................................................................................................... 5.6-6 

Table 5.6-4 Intersection Level of Service: Existing Conditions ............................................... 5.6-9 

Table 5.6-5 Existing Transit Service in the Vicinity of the Project Sites ............................... 5.6-10 

Table 5.6-6 Daily Construction Vehicles by Site ..................................................................... 5.6-15 

Table 5.6-7 AM and PM Peak Hour Construction Vehicles by Site ..................................... 5.6-15 

Table 5.6-8 Summary of Impacts – Transportation and Circulation .................................... 5.6-16 

Table 5.6-9 Intersection Level of Service: Existing and Existing plus Project 

Conditions ................................................................................................................ 5.6-19 

Table 5.7-1 Typical A-weighted Sound Levels .......................................................................... 5.7-2 

Table 5.7-2 Decibel Addition ....................................................................................................... 5.7-3 

Table 5.7-3 Long-Term Measurements – Summary of Existing Noise Levels .................... 5.7-10 

Table 5.7-4 Short-Term Measurements – Summary of Existing Noise Levels .................... 5.7-11 

SFPUC Peninsula Pipelines Seismic Upgrade vii Environmental Planning Case No. 2011.0123E 



Table 5.7-5 Nearest Distances Between Project Sites and Sensitive Receptors ................... 5.7-13 

Table 5.7-6 Caltrans Guidelines for Vibration Damage Potential Threshold Criteria ....... 5.7-17 

Table 5.7-7 Caltrans Guidelines for Vibration Annoyance Potential Criteria..................... 5.7-17 

Table 5.7-8 San Mateo County Exterior Noise Standards (dBA).......................................... 5.7-18 

Table 5.7-9 Summary of Noise and Vibration Significance Thresholds .............................. 5.7-24 

Table 5.7-10 Summary of Impacts – Noise and Vibration ....................................................... 5.7-25 

Table 5.7-11 Construction Equipment Reference Noise Levels .............................................. 5.7-27 

Table 5.7-12 Summary of Daytime Construction Noise Impacts by Site and 

Construction Phase ................................................................................................. 5.7-30 

Table 5.7-13 Estimated Hourly Leq Along Project Access Routes ........................................... 5.7-38 

Table 5.7-14 Summary of Nighttime Construction Noise Impacts by Site and 

Construction Phase ................................................................................................. 5.7-39 

Table 5.7-15 Distance Within Which Vibration Annoyance and Damage Potential 

Thresholds For Continuous Construction Sources Would Be Exceeded ........ 5.7-45 

Table 5.8-1 San Francisco-Arkansas Street Ambient Air Quality Monitoring 

Summary 2009-2011 .................................................................................................. 5.8-2 

Table 5.8-2 Permitted Stationary, Mobile, and Concurrent Construction Project 

Emissions Sources in the Project Vicinity .............................................................. 5.8-6 

Table 5.8-3 State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards and SFBAAB 

Attainment Status ..................................................................................................... 5.8-9 

Table 5.8-4 Air Quality Significance Thresholds .................................................................... 5.8-14 

Table 5.8-5 Summary of Impacts – Air Quality....................................................................... 5.8-18 

Table 5.8-6 Average Daily Emissions and Total Emissions of Criteria Pollutants 

During Construction ............................................................................................... 5.8-19 

Table 5.8-7 Construction-Related Cancer Risk, Acute, and Chronic Noncancer 

Health Risk at MEI .................................................................................................. 5.8-23 

Table 5.8-8 Construction Period Cumulative Health Risk Assessment Results ................. 5.8-27 

Table 5.9-1 GHG Reductions from the Assembly Bill 32 Scoping Plan Sectors ................... 5.9-3 

Table 5.9-2 Summary of Impacts – Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................. 5.9-7 

Table 5.9-3 Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions During Construction ............................. 5.9-7 

Table 5.11-1 Summary of Impacts – Recreation Resources ..................................................... 5.11-5 

Table 5.12-1 Distance to PG&E Natural Gas Lines ................................................................... 5.12-1 

Table 5.12-2 Summary of Impacts – Utilities and Service Systems ...................................... 5.12-10 

Table 5.14-1 Vegetation Communities ....................................................................................... 5.14-6 

Table 5.14-2 Special-Status Wildlife Species Potentially Occurring at the Sites ................. 5.14-19 

Table 5.14-3 Trees Protected by San Mateo County Heritage Tree Ordinance .................. 5.14-29 

Table 5.14-4 Summary of Biological Resources within the Project Area ............................. 5.14-34 

Table 5.14-5 Summary of Impacts – Biological Resources ..................................................... 5.14-35 

Table 5.14-6 Summary of Applicable Tree Ordinances ......................................................... 5.14-52 

Table 5.15-1 Significant Active and Potentially Active Faults ................................................ 5.15-3 

Table 5.15-2 Significant Historic Earthquakes in the San Francisco Bay Area ................... 5.15-14 

SFPUC Peninsula Pipelines Seismic Upgrade viii Environmental Planning Case No. 2011.0123E 



Table 5.15-3 Soil Types in the Study Area ............................................................................... 5.15-21 

Table 5.15-4 Summary of Impacts – Geology and Soils ......................................................... 5.15-26 

Table 5.16-1 Creeks and Watersheds in the Study Area .......................................................... 5.16-4 

Table 5.16-2 Groundwater Elevations and Depths in the Study Area ................................... 5.16-6 

Table 5.16-3 Summary of Impacts – Hydrology and Water Quality ................................... 5.16-13 

Table 5.16-4 Comparison between Depth to Shallow Groundwater and Expected 

Depth of Excavation ............................................................................................. 5.16-19 

Table 5.17-1 Summary of Impacts – Hazards and Hazardous Materials ............................ 5.17-20 

Table 5.18-1 Summary of Impacts – Mineral and Energy Resources ..................................... 5.18-6 

Table 6-1 Summary of Cumulative Impacts .............................................................................. 6-3 

Table 7-1 Selected Alternatives for CEQA Analysis ................................................................ 7-2 

Table 7-2 Reduction in Impacts – Sliplining Alternative ....................................................... 7-29 

Table 7-3 Comparison of the Environmental Impacts of the CEQA Alternatives ............. 7-30 

Table 7-4 Alternatives Considered But Rejected from Further Consideration ................... 7-36 

SFPUC Peninsula Pipelines Seismic Upgrade ix Environmental Planning Case No. 2011.0123E 



FIGURES 

Figure 2-1 SFPUC Regional Water System .................................................................................. 2-3 

Figure 2-2 SFPUC Water Supply Watersheds ............................................................................. 2-4 

Figure 2-3 SFPUC Water Service Area – San Francisco and SFPUC Wholesale 

Customers ..................................................................................................................... 2-5 

Figure 3-1 Project Vicinity ............................................................................................................. 3-2 

Figure 3-2 Colma Site ..................................................................................................................... 3-4 

Figure 3-3 South San Francisco Site .............................................................................................. 3-5 

Figure 3-4 San Bruno North Site ................................................................................................... 3-6 

Figure 3-5 San Bruno South Site ................................................................................................... 3-8 

Figure 3-6 Millbrae Site .................................................................................................................. 3-9 

Figure 3-7 Colma Plan and Profile ............................................................................................. 3-15 

Figure 3-8 South San Francisco Plan and Profile ...................................................................... 3-17 

Figure 3-9 San Bruno North Plan and Profile ........................................................................... 3-18 

Figure 3-10 San Bruno South Plan and Profile ............................................................................ 3-20 

Figure 3-11 Millbrae Plan and Profile .......................................................................................... 3-21 

Figure 3-12 Construction Phasing ................................................................................................ 3-35 

Figure 5.1-1 Cumulative Projects .................................................................................................. 5.1-9 

Figure 5.3-1 Photo Point Locations – Colma Site ........................................................................ 5.3-6 

Figure 5.3-2 Views of Colma Site .................................................................................................. 5.3-7 

Figure 5.3-3 Photo Point Locations – South San Francisco Site ................................................ 5.3-8 

Figure 5.3-4 Views of South San Francisco Site .......................................................................... 5.3-9 

Figure 5.3-5 Photo Point Locations – San Bruno North Site ................................................... 5.3-10 

Figure 5.3-6 Views of San Bruno North Site .............................................................................. 5.3-11 

Figure 5.3-7 Photo Point Locations – San Bruno South Site .................................................... 5.3-12 

Figure 5.3-8 Views of San Bruno South Site .............................................................................. 5.3-13 

Figure 5.3-9 Photo Point Locations – Millbrae Site .................................................................. 5.3-14 

Figure 5.3-10 Views of Millbrae Site ............................................................................................. 5.3-15 

Figure 5.6-1 Study Intersections ................................................................................................... 5.6-7 

Figure 5.7-1 Noise Measurement Locations Colma Site ............................................................ 5.7-5 

Figure 5.7-2 Noise Measurement Locations South San Francisco Site .................................... 5.7-6 

Figure 5.7-3 Noise Measurement Locations San Bruno North Site .......................................... 5.7-7 

Figure 5.7-4 Noise Measurement Locations San Bruno South Site .......................................... 5.7-8 

Figure 5.7-5 Noise Measurement Locations Millbrae Site ......................................................... 5.7-9 

Figure 5.7-6 24-Hour Dewatering Locations ............................................................................. 5.7-15 

Figure 5.14-1 Vegetation Communities and Water Features – Colma Site ............................ 5.14-7 

Figure 5.14-2 Vegetation Communities and Water Features – South San Francisco Site .... 5.14-8 

Figure 5.14-3 Vegetation Communities and Water Features – San Bruno North Site .......... 5.14-9 

Figure 5.14-4 Vegetation Communities and Water Features – San Bruno South Site ........ 5.14-10 

Figure 5.14-5 Vegetation Communities and Water Features – Millbrae Site ....................... 5.14-11 

SFPUC Peninsula Pipelines Seismic Upgrade x Environmental Planning Case No. 2011.0123E 



Figure 5.15-1 Geology – Overview ............................................................................................... 5.15-4 

Figure 5.15-2 Geology – Colma Site ............................................................................................. 5.15-5 

Figure 5.15-3 Geology – South San Francisco Site ...................................................................... 5.15-6 

Figure 5.15-4 Geology – San Bruno North Site ........................................................................... 5.15-7 

Figure 5.15-5 Geology – San Bruno South Site............................................................................ 5.15-8 

Figure 5.15-6 Geology – Millbrae Site .......................................................................................... 5.15-9 

Figure 15.5-7 Historic Seismicity ................................................................................................ 5.15-13 

Figure 5.15-8 Soil Types – North Sites ....................................................................................... 5.15-19 

Figure 5.15-9 Soil Types – South Sites ........................................................................................ 5.15-20 

Figure 5.16-1 Hydrology – North Sites ........................................................................................ 5.16-2 

Figure 5.16-2 Hydrology – South Sites........................................................................................ 5.16-3 

Figure 7-1 Sliplining Alternative South San Francisco Site ..................................................... 7-17 

Figure 7-2 Sliplining Alternative San Bruno South Site .......................................................... 7-18 

Figure 7-3 Sliplining Alternative Millbrae Site ......................................................................... 7-19 

SFPUC Peninsula Pipelines Seismic Upgrade xi Environmental Planning Case No. 2011.0123E 



VOLUME 2 (BOUND SEPARATELY) 

APPENDICES 

A. Notice of Preparation 

B. Public Scoping Process Summary Report 

C. Transportation 

D. Noise 

D-1 Noise and Vibration Fundamentals 

D-2 Long-Term Measurement Data Time History Plots 

D-3 Estimates of Construction-Related Noise Levels at the Closest Sensitive 

Receptors 

E. Air Quality Technical Report 

F. Biological Resources 

Table 1.1 Special-Status Plant Species Potentially Occurring in Study Area 

Table 1.2 Vascular Plant Species Observed in Study Area 

Table 2.1 Special-Status Wildlife Species Potentially Occurring in Study Area 

Table 2.2 Wildlife Species Observed in Study Area 

G. Historical Site Data -Sanborn Map Reports, Historical Topographic Map Reports, and 

Aerial Photographs 

SFPUC Peninsula Pipelines Seismic Upgrade xii Environmental Planning Case No. 2011.0123E 


TableofContents 

 

SFPUCPeninsulaPipelinesSeismicUpgrade xiii EnvironmentalPlanningCaseNo.2011.0123E 

PublicReviewDraftEIR 

March2013 

 

 

ACRONYMS 

AASHTO 

AmericanAssociationofStateHighwayandTransportationOfficials 

AB 

AssemblyBill 

ABAG 

AssociationofBayAreaGovernments 

ACM 

asbestoscontainingmaterials 

AADT 

annualaveragedailytraffic 

AEP 

ArchaeologicalEvaluationPlan 

AEW 

AEWEngineering,Inc. 

AMP 

ArchaeologicalMonitoringPlan 

A.D. 

AnnoDomini 

ANSI 

AmericanNationalStandardsInstitute 

APE 

areaofpotentialeffect 

ASP 

ArchaeologicalSurveyPlan 

AYSO 

AmericanYouthSoccerOrganization 

B.C. 

BeforeChrist 

B.P. 

beforepresent 

BAAQMD 

BayAreaAirQualityManagementDistrict 

BART 

BayAreaRapidTransit 

BAWSCA 

BayAreaWaterSupplyandConservationAgency 

BCRLF 

BrownfieldsCleanupRevolvingLoanFund 

bgs 

belowgroundsurface 

BMPs 

bestmanagementpractices 

BO 

BiologicalOpinion 

C/CAG 

CityandCountyAssociationofGovernmentsofSanMateoCounty 

CALFIRE 

CaliforniaDepartmentofForestryandFireProtection 

CalWater 

CaliforniaWaterServiceCompany 

Cal/OSHA 

CaliforniaDivisionofOccupationalSafetyandHealth 

CalEPA 

CaliforniaEnvironmentalProtectionAgency 

CalIPC 

CaliforniaInvasivePlantCouncil 

Calisphere 

Calisphere:AWorldofDigitalResources 

Caltrans 

CaliforniaDepartmentofTransportation 

CAPE 

CaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityAct–AreaofPotentialEffects 

CARB 

CaliforniaAirResourcesBoard 

CBC 

The2008CaliforniaBuildingCode 

CCR 

CaliforniaCodeofRegulations 

CCSF 

CityandCountyofSanFrancisco 

CCTS 

CentralCaliforniaTaxonomicSystem 

CDC 

CaliforniaDepartmentofConservation 

CDFG 

CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandGame(nowCDFW) 

CDFW 

CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlife 

CEHTP 

CaliforniaEnvironmentalHealthTrackingProgram 

CEQA 

CaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityAct 

CERCLA 

ComprehensiveEnvironmentalResponse,Compensation,and 

LiabilityAct


CERCLIS 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Information System 

CESA 

California Endangered Species Act 

CFC 

California Fire Code 

CFPD 

Colma Fire Protection District 

CFR 

Code of Federal Regulations 

CGS 

California Geological Survey 

CHMIRS 

California Hazardous Material Incident Report System 

CMP 

Congestion Management Program 

CNDDB 

California Natural Diversity Database 

CNEL 

community noise equivalent level 

CNPS 

California Native Plant Society 

CO 

carbon monoxide 

CO2 

carbon dioxide 

CO2e 

carbon dioxide-equivalent 

Corps 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

CPUC 

California Public Utilities Commission 

CRA 

Conestoga-Rovers & Associates 

CRHR 

California Register of Historical Resources 

CSCSD 

Crystal Springs County Sanitation District 

CWA 

Clean Water Act 

CWHR 

California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System 

dBA 

A-weighted decibel 

DPM 

diesel particulate matter 

DPR 

Department of Parks and Recreation 

DTSC 

Department of Toxic Substances Control 

DWR 

California Department of Water Resources 

eb 

eastbound 

EDR 

Environmental Data Resources, Inc. 

EIR 


Environmental Planning San Francisco Planning Department’s Environmental Planning 

Division 

ERNS 

Emergency Response Notification System 

ERO 

Environmental Review Officer 

ESA 

Environmental Site Assessment 

°F degree Fahrenheit 

FAA 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FAR 

Federal Aviation Regulations 

FCC 

Federal Communications Commission 

Fed-OSHA 

U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

FEMA 

Federal Emergency Management Agency 

FESA 

Federal Endangered Species Act 

FHSZ 

Fire Hazard Severity Zones 

FIRM 

Flood Insurance Rate Map 

FRAP 

Fire and Resource Assessment Program 

FTA 

Federal Transit Authority 

FWLA 

Fugro William Lettis & Associates, Inc. 

SFPUC Peninsula Pipelines Seismic Upgrade xiv Environmental Planning Case No. 2011.0123E 



GSR 

Groundwater Storage and Recovery 

GTC 

Geotechnical Consultants, Inc. 

HASP 

Health and Safety Plan 

HCASR 

Historic Context and Archaeological Survey Report 

HCP 

Habitat Conservation Plan 

HI 

hazard index 

HMBP 

Hazardous Material Business Plan 

HPC 

The San Francisco Historic Preservation Commission 

HPSR 

Historic Properties Survey Report 

HQ 

hazard quotient 

HTWTP 

Harry Tracy Water Treatment Plant 

I-280 Interstate 280 

I-380 Interstate 380 

IBC 

International Building Code 

ICF 

ICF Jones & Stokes 

in/sec 

inches per second 

ISCST3 Industrial Source Complex Short Term Model 3 

ITP 

Incidental Take Permit 

JRP 

JRP Historical Consulting, LLC 

Ldn 

day-night average sound level 

Leq 

equivalent continuous noise level 

Lmax 

maximum A-weighted sound level 

LOS 

Level of Service 

LUST 

Leaking Underground Storage Tank Lists 

MBTA 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

MEA 

San Francisco Planning Department, Major Environmental Analysis 

Division (now Environmental Planning) 

MEI 

maximally exposed individual 

MG 

million gallons 

mgd 

million gallons per day 

μg/L 

micrograms per liter 

μg/m 3 

micrograms per cubic meter 

micro-Pa 

microPascal 

MLD 

Most Likely Descendant 

MMTCO2e 

million metric tons of carbon dioxide-equivalent 

MOA 

memorandum of agreement 

mph 

miles per hour 

MS4s 

municipal separate storm sewer systems 

msl 

mean sea level 

MRZ 

Mineral Resource Zones 

MT 

metric tons 

NAHC 

Native American Heritage Commission 

nb 

northbound 

NEPA 

National Environmental Policy Act 

NFIP 

National Flood Insurance Program 

NHPA 

National Historic Preservation Act 

NMFS 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

SFPUC Peninsula Pipelines Seismic Upgrade xv Environmental Planning Case No. 2011.0123E 



NO2 

nitrogen dioxide 

NOA 

naturally occurring asbestos 

NOI 

Notice of Intent 

NOP 

Notice of Preparation 

NOX 

oxides of nitrogen 

NPDES 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

NPL 

National Priorities List 

NRHP 

National Register of Historic Places 

NSR 

New Source Review 

NWIC 

Northwest Information Center 

OHP 

Office of Historic Preservation 

OPR 

California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research 

PCB 

polychlorinated biphenyls 

PCCP 

Prestressed Concrete Cylinder Pipe 

PEIR 

Program Environmental Impact Report 

PG&E 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company 

Phase I ESA 

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 

PM10 

particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter 

PM2.5 

particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter 

ppb 

parts per billion 

ppm 

parts per million 

PPSU 

Peninsula Pipelines Seismic Upgrade 

PPV 

peak particle velocity 

PRC 

California Public Resources Code 

PRDs 

Permit Registration Documents 

RCRA 

Resource Conservation Recovery Act 

REL 

reference exposure level 

RGSR 

Regional Groundwater Storage and Recovery 

ROG 

reactive organic gas 

ROW 

right-of-way 

RWQCB 

Regional Water Quality Control Board 

s/n 

serial number 

SamTrans 

San Mateo Country Transit 

SAPL 

San Andreas Pipeline 

SAPL2 San Andreas Pipeline No. 2 

SAPL3 San Andreas Pipeline No. 3 

SARA 

Superfund Amendment Reauthorization Act 

SB 

Senate Bill 

sb 

southbound 

SFBAAB 

San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin 

SFDPH 

San Francisco Department of Public Health 

SFO 

San Francisco International Airport 

SF Planning 

City and County of San Francisco, San Francisco Planning 

Department 

SFPUC 


SFWD 

San Francisco Water Department 

SIL 

Significant Impact Level 

SFPUC Peninsula Pipelines Seismic Upgrade xvi Environmental Planning Case No. 2011.0123E 



SIP 

State Implementation Plan 

SLIC 

Spills, Leaks, Investigations, and Cleanup 

SMARA Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 

SMCEH 

San Mateo County Environmental Health 

SMCWPPP 

San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program 

SO2 

sulfur dioxide 

SR 

State Route 

SSBPL 

Sunset Supply Branch Pipeline 

SVP 

Society of Vertebrate Paleontology 

SVWC 

Spring Valley Water Company 

SWRCB 

State Water Resources Control Board 

TAC 

toxic air contaminant 

TBA 

Targeted Brownfields Assessment 

TMDL 

Total Maximum Daily Load 

TOG 

total organic gas 

TPH-diesel 

total petroleum hydrocarbons as diesel 

TPH-gas 

total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline 

TSCA 

Toxic Substances Control Act 

U.S. 101 U.S. Highway 101 

U.S. EPA 

United States Environmental Protection Agency 

URS 

URS Corporation 

USFWS 

U. S Fish and Wildlife Service 

USGS 

U.S. Geological Survey 

UTM 

Universal Transverse Mercator Zone 

VegCAMP 

Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program 

VHFHSZ 

Very High Fire Severity Zones 

WMUDS/SWAT 

Waste Management Unit Database System 

WSIP 

Water System Improvement Program 

SFPUC Peninsula Pipelines Seismic Upgrade xvii Environmental Planning Case No. 2011.0123E 


This page left intentionally blank.

CHAPTER 1 

 

1.1 Introduction and Purpose of Project 

The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) is proposing the Peninsula Pipelines 

Seismic Upgrade (PPSU) project (or proposed project). The proposed project involves seismic 

upgrades to SFPUC regional water facilities on the San Francisco Peninsula at five sites in the 

Town of Colma and the cities of South San Francisco, San Bruno, Millbrae, and in unincorporated 

San Mateo County. The SFPUC is proposing the PPSU project to improve the seismic reliability of 

transmission pipelines between the Harry Tracy Water Treatment Plant (HTWTP) and the 

Capuchino, Baden, and San Pedro Valve Lots, in the event of a major earthquake on the San 

Andreas Fault. 

Under the San Francisco Administrative Code, Chapter 31, the San Francisco Planning 

Department’s Environmental Planning Division (Environmental Planning) (formerly the Major 

Environmental Analysis Division) is responsible for conducting the environmental review of all 

City and County of San Francisco (CCSF) projects pursuant to the requirements of the California 

Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Thus, Environmental Planning is the lead agency 

responsible for preparing this Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in compliance with CEQA, and 

the SFPUC is the project sponsor proposing to implement the PPSU project. This EIR is being 

prepared to disclose to the public and decision-makers the potential physical impacts of the PPSU 

project, so that an informed judgment can be made about the project’s environmental 

consequences. 

1.2 Overview of SFPUC Regional Water System 

The CCSF, through the SFPUC, owns and operates a regional water system that extends from the 

Sierra Nevada to San Francisco, and serves retail and wholesale customers in San Francisco, San 

Mateo, Santa Clara, Alameda, and Tuolumne counties. The regional water system consists of 

water conveyance, treatment, and distribution facilities, and delivers water to retail and 

wholesale customers. The regional system includes more than 280 miles of pipelines, more than 

60 miles of tunnels, 11 reservoirs, five pump stations, and two water treatment plants. The 

SFPUC currently delivers an annual average of about 265 million gallons per day of water to its 

customers. The water comes from a combination of local supplies from streamflow and runoff in 

the Alameda Creek watershed and the San Mateo Creek and Pilarcitos Creek watersheds 

SFPUC Peninsula Pipelines Seismic Upgrade 1-1 Environmental Planning Case No. 2011.0123E 


1. Executive Summary 

(referred to together as the Peninsula watersheds), augmented with imported supplies from the 

Tuolumne River watershed. Local watersheds provide about 15 percent of total supplies, and the 

Tuolumne River provides the remaining 85 percent. 

The SFPUC serves about one-third of its water supplies directly to retail customers, primarily in 

San Francisco, and about two-thirds of its water supplies to wholesale customers by contractual 

agreement. The wholesale customers are largely represented by the Bay Area Water Supply and 

Conservation Agency, which consists of 26 member agencies in Alameda, San Mateo, and Santa 

Clara counties. Some of these wholesale customers have other sources of water in addition to the 

SFPUC, while others rely completely on the SFPUC for supply. 

In October 2008, the SFPUC adopted a systemwide program, the Water System Improvement 

Program (WSIP) (also known as the “Phased WSIP Variant”) (SFPUC Resolution 08-200 [SFPUC, 

2008]). The WSIP is a comprehensive program designed to improve the regional system with 

respect to water quality, seismic response, and water delivery, based on a planning horizon 

through the year 2030; and to improve the regional system with respect to water supply to meet 

water delivery needs in the SFPUC service area through the year 2018. The WSIP consists of a 

water supply strategy and modifications to system operations, as well as construction of a series 

of facility improvement projects in seven counties—Tuolumne, Stanislaus, San Joaquin, Alameda, 

Santa Clara, San Mateo, and San Francisco. The PPSU project was not initially identified as a 

WSIP facility improvement project, but is now proposed under the WSIP. The PPSU project was 

determined to have independent utility, as further described in Chapter 2, Introduction and 

Background. 

1.3 Project Background and Objectives 

1.3.1 Project Background 

The PPSU project was not included in the WSIP Program EIR (PEIR) as a facility improvement 

project because the need for the project was not identified when the WSIP was originally 

conceived. The SFPUC identified the need for the project after certification of the WSIP PEIR, as a 

result of geotechnical investigations in connection with the HTWTP Long-Term Improvements 

Project, which is a WSIP facility improvement project that was approved and adopted by the 

SFPUC in 2010. 

During these investigations, the SFPUC determined that fault strands within the plant’s site 

could cause significant failure in existing facilities in the event of a major San Andreas earthquake 

(G&E/GTC Joint Venture, 2011). The fault strands were determined to be part of the Serra Fault 

system, a secondary fault located along the peninsula in San Mateo County. During additional 

investigations of the Serra Fault system, the SFPUC identified areas along the San Andreas 

Pipeline No. 2 (SAPL2), San Andreas Pipeline No. 3 (SAPL3), and Sunset Supply Branch Pipeline 

(SSBPL) that are susceptible to liquefaction, ground shaking, and landslides (G&E/GTC Joint 

Venture, 2011). As a result of these studies, the SFPUC identified six pipeline segments in need of 

seismic improvements at five locations, which are included in the proposed project and are the 

subject of this EIR. 




1.3.2 Project Objectives 

The goal of the proposed project is to improve the seismic reliability of transmission pipelines 

between HTWTP and the Capuchino, Baden, and San Pedro Valve Lots in the event of a major 

earthquake on the San Andreas Fault. Objectives would be achieved by completing proposed 

improvements designed to prevent the failure of SAPL2, SAPL3, and SSBPL, to maintain 

reliability during a major seismic event. 

The objectives of the proposed project are as follows: 

 

 

 

Upgrade segments of the SAPL2, SAPL3, and SSBPL to meet current seismic standards in 

locations where they cross the Serra Fault, so that they can withstand the ground 

displacements potentially caused by a fault offset. This is intended to preserve water flow 

from the HTWTP to downstream facilities after a major San Andreas earthquake, and to 

achieve WSIP seismic reliability Level of Service goals. 

Minimize interruptions of water delivery during and following a seismic event by 

minimizing seismic vulnerabilities at the Serra Fault crossing locations, and by minimizing 

vulnerabilities at the liquefaction-susceptible zones. 

Reduce the physical, social, and economic impacts associated with the potential rupture of 

the existing SAPL2, SAPL3, and SSBPL during a major earthquake. 

1.4 Project Description 

1.4.1 Project Location and Components 

The proposed project consists of seismic upgrades to three SFPUC water transmission pipelines— 

SAPL2, SAPL3, and SSBPL—at five locations on the San Francisco Peninsula. The upgrades 

would improve segments of pipelines to increase reliability during potential seismic events. The 

proposed project activities are listed below: 

Colma Site – Replacement of an approximately 700-foot segment of SAPL2; 

South San Francisco Site – Replacement of an approximately 720-foot segment of SAPL2; 1 

San Bruno North Site – Stabilization of SAPL2 where it extends through a tunnel; 

San Bruno South Site – Replacement of an approximately 1,170-foot segment of SAPL2 and 

an approximately 1,050-foot segment of SAPL3; and 

Millbrae Site – Replacement of an approximately 900-foot segment of SSBPL. 

A common staging area would be located at SFPUC’s Baden Valve Lot in South San Francisco on 

El Camino Real. 

1 

A portion of the project site is also located in unincorporated San Mateo County. 




1.4.2 Project Construction 

Construction is estimated to begin in 2014 and end in 2015, with a total duration of 

approximately 12 months. The duration of construction activities at each site would range from 

1 month to 9 months. Construction activities would occur concurrently at multiple sites, and 

primarily during weekdays, from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. Weekend work may be required on a limited 

basis, although the nature of such work is not currently known. Weekend construction hours 

would be the same as those described for weekdays. Nighttime construction may be required at 

the San Bruno North site. Nighttime activities would also include limited 24-hour pumping for 

dewatering of the pipelines at a few locations, as described in Chapter 3, Project Description. 

There would be three phases of construction activities. Initially, tree removal would be completed 

at the South San Francisco and Millbrae sites, where dense groves of trees are present in the 

SFPUC right-of-way. The first construction phase would entail shutdown and dewatering of the 

pipeline, and mobilization activities such as installation of fencing, grubbing, and preparation of 

laydown areas. The second phase would include excavation; pipeline removal and installation; 

hydrostatic testing; and backfill, landscaping, and site restoration. The third phase would include 

disinfection of the pipelines. 

Primary access to the sites that comprise the project and the common staging area would be from 

Interstate 280; localized access would vary by site. Construction access routes would include both 

public roadways and unpaved routes. New and existing unpaved routes through public and 

private lands would be required for the Millbrae site. 

On-haul of construction materials, including shoring materials, new pipes, and trench backfill 

materials; and off-haul of construction debris, including old pipe, shoring, tree debris and 

vegetation, and excavated spoils, would require a total of approximately 7,060 truck trips. The 

estimated average trips per day would range from approximately two trips at the San Bruno 

North site to approximately 21 truck trips at the San Bruno South site; the estimated maximum 

trips would range from approximately eight trips per day at the San Bruno North site to 

approximately 118 trips at the San Bruno South site. 

1.4.3 Project Operations 

Future operations and maintenance would be the same as existing operations and maintenance 

activities, and would continue to entail yearly visual inspections. Approximately every 10 to 

15 years, inspections would entail physically entering the manholes for visual inspections inside 

the pipelines. On an annual basis, water may be discharged from the manholes, as required by 

other SFPUC projects or inspections. 




1.5 Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation 

Measures 

Table 1-1 summarizes the potential environmental impacts for each site, by resource area, and 

identifies the mitigation measures that would reduce potentially significant impacts to a lessthan-significant 

level, where feasible. The significance criteria used for each environmental topic/ 

resource area are presented in each section of Chapter 5, following the environmental setting and 

before the discussion of impacts. For the impact analyses, the following categories are used to 

determine impact significance: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No Impact (NI). An impact is considered not applicable (no impact) if there is no potential 

for impacts, or the environmental resource does not occur within the project area or the area 

of potential effect. For example, there would be no impacts related to tree removal if there is 

no tree removal proposed at a project site. 

Less-than-Significant impact, no mitigation required (LS). This determination applies if 

there is a potential for a limited impact that would not qualify as a significant impact under 

the significance criteria. 

Less-than-Significant impact with Mitigation (LSM). This determination applies if the 

project would result in an adverse effect that meets the significance criteria, but feasible 

mitigation is available that would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. 

Significant impact (S). This determination applies if the project would result in a substantial, 

or potentially substantial, adverse change that meets the significance criteria before 

mitigation. 

Significant and Unavoidable impact for which feasible mitigation is not available (SU). 

This determination applies if the project would result in an adverse effect that meets the 

significance criteria, but for which there appears to be no feasible mitigation available to 

reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, the impact would be significant 

and unavoidable. 

Significant and Unavoidable impact with implementation of feasible Mitigation (SUM). 

This determination applies if it is certain that the project would result in an adverse effect 

that meets the significance criteria and mitigation is available to lessen the impact, but the 

residual effect after implementation of the measure would remain significant. Therefore, the 

impact is significant and unavoidable with mitigation. 




Table 1-1 

Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures 

Impact Significance Without 

Mitigation Measure 

Impact Significance With 


Impact Summary 

Colma Site 

South San Francisco Site 

San Bruno North Site 

San Bruno South Site 

Millbrae Site 

Common Staging Area 

Mitigation Measures 

Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 


Section 5.2: Land Use and Land Use Planning 

Impact LU-1: Project construction could have a 

substantial temporary direct or indirect impact on the 

existing character of the vicinity, or could substantially 

impact or disrupt existing land uses or land use 

activities. 

S S S S S NI Mitigation Measure M-LU-1a: Notice of Construction Activities 

This mitigation measure applies to all the project sites. The 

following notification procedures shall be implemented prior 

to construction: 

LSM LSM LSM LSM LSM 

Overall Project Impact: LSM 

NI 

1. The SFPUC shall provide advance notification to businesses, 

property owners, facility managers, and residents of 

adjacent areas potentially affected by the PPSU project 

about the nature, extent, and duration of construction 

activities, at least 1 week prior to construction. The SFPUC 

shall also provide interim updates to these parties during 

periods of active construction to inform them of the status of 

the construction activities and schedule. Notices shall be 

sent to sensitive receptors and affected adjacent properties 

identified below: 

 

 

Colma Site – Kohl’s Department Store; Home Sweet 

Home Assisted Living Facility; and Cypress Lawn 

Memorial Cemetery; 

South San Francisco Site –Residences adjacent to 

the construction zone along Arroyo Drive; 

Clubview Apartments; and California Golf Club of 

San Francisco; 




Table 1-1 

Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures (Continued) 






Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 



Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 


 

 

 

San Bruno North Site – Residences adjacent to the 

construction zone along Cedarwood Court and 

Pepper Drive; 

San Bruno South Site – Park Plaza Apartments and 

Shelter Creek Condominiums; Residences adjacent to 

the construction zone along Courtland Drive; Peninsula 

High School and other uses at the former Crestmoor 

High School campus; Peninsula High School 

Athletic Fields; and San Bruno Chinese Church; and 

Millbrae Site – Green Hills Country Club; 

Meadows Elementary School; Residences along 

Ridgewood Drive; Residences adjacent to the 

construction zone along Ridgewood Drive, 

Hacienda Way, Helen Drive, Banbury Lane; 

Millwood Drive and Barcelona Drive; and Glen 

Oaks and Millbrae Montessori Schools; 

2. The SFPUC shall coordinate with managers of facilities 

including, but not limited to, Kohl’s Department Store, 

San Bruno Chinese Church, Peninsula High School, and 

the Green Hills Country Club to minimize disruptions to 

facility operations and activities, to the extent feasible. 

3. Should weekend work be necessary, the SFPUC shall 

notify adjacent properties, including reasonable advance 

notification to the businesses, owners, and residents of 

adjacent areas potentially affected by the proposed 

project, and interim updates shall be provided. 




Table 1-1 







Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 



Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 


M-LU-1b: Minimum 2-Week Notice of Construction 

Activities to Homes with Significant Unavoidable Noise 

Impacts 

This mitigation measure applies to South San Francisco, San 

Bruno North, San Bruno South, and Millbrae sites only. The 

SFPUC or its contractor shall provide 14-day advance notice 

by mail or hand delivery to all residents, tenants, and/or 

property owners in those homes listed below as being 

potentially subject to significant and unavoidable noise 

impacts, even after administrative and source controls are 

implemented. 

 

 

 

South San Francisco Site – Arroyo Drive (address 

numbers 105, 107 and 108); 

San Bruno North Site – Cedarwood Court (address 

numbers 1790, 1791, 1800, 1801, 1820, 1821, 1840, 

and 1841); and Pepper Drive (address numbers 763, 769, 

773, 779, 783, 789, 793, and 795); 

San Bruno South Site – Courtland Drive (address 

numbers 300, 306, 310, 316, 320, 326, 330, 336, 340, 350, 

360, and 370); Shelter Creek Condominiums 

Buildings 4A, 4B, and 4D; and Park Plaza Apartments; 

and 




Table 1-1 







Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 



Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 


Millbrae Site – Hacienda Way (address numbers 859, 

869, 873, 877, 881, 885, 889, 913, and 917); Ridgewood 

Drive (address numbers 1078, 1086, 1094, 1100, 1101, 

1106, 1110, 1116, 1120, 1126, and 1130); and Banbury 

Lane (address number 971). 

The notice will state the construction location, anticipated 

activities, and schedule, including whether nighttime 

construction is proposed. The notice will provide information 

about anticipated construction-related noise impacts and 

provide suggestions for avoiding or reducing exposure to 

such impacts (e.g., planning alternative schedules, closing 

windows facing the planned construction sites). 

The SFPUC shall identify and provide a public liaison person 

before and during construction to respond to the concerns of 

neighboring property owners. Procedures for contacting the 

public liaison officer via a toll-free telephone number, email, or 

in person will be included in the notices. Prior to construction, 

the SFPUC communications manager, resident engineer, and 

construction manager shall develop and review procedures for 

receiving and responding to questions and complaints. 

M-RE-1: Coordination with Green Hills Country Club 

Facility (see Impact RE-1 in Section 5.11, Recreation, for 

description) 




Table 1-1 







Impact LU-2: Project operations would not result in 

substantial long-term or permanent impacts on the 

existing character of the vicinity or could substantially 

impact or disrupt existing land uses or land use 

activities. 

Impact C-LU: Project construction could result in a 

cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative 

impacts on existing land uses. 

Impact AE-1: Project construction would not result in 

substantial adverse effects on scenic vistas or 

temporarily degrade the visual character of the site and 

its surroundings 

Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 



NI LS NI NI LS NI None required. NI LS NI NI LS NI 

Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 

Overall Project Impact: LS 

S S S S S S Mitigation Measure M-LU-1a: Notice of Construction Activities LSM LSM LSM LSM LSM LSM 

(see above) 



Impacts (see above) 

Section 5.3: Aesthetics 


LS LS LS LS LS LS None required. LS LS LS LS LS LS 



Impact AE-2: Project construction could result in 

significant impacts related to a new source of 

substantial light or glare. 

LS LS S LS LS LS M-AE-2: Site-Specific Construction Lighting Plan 

This mitigation measure applies to the San Bruno North site 

only. 

LS LS LSM LS LS LS 





Table 1-1 







Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 



Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 


The SFPUC shall require the contractor to develop and implement 

a site-specific nighttime lighting plan. A qualified lighting 

professional shall prepare the plan, which shall specify lighting 

sources for nighttime operations, and require that lighting be 

shielded and directed specifically onto work areas to minimize 

light spillover. The plan shall also provide for light source monitoring 

to ensure that feasible adjustments are made as necessary 

to provide maximum shielding during all phases of construction. 

The contractor shall submit the plan to the SFPUC for review and 

approval prior to commencing nighttime construction operations, 

at which time the plan shall be implemented continuously until 

the end of nighttime construction. 

Impact AE-3: Project operations would not result in 

long-term adverse effects on scenic vistas or scenic 

resources, or degradation of the visual character of the 

site and its surroundings. 

Impact C-AE: Implementation of the proposed project 

would not result in a cumulatively considerable 

contribution to cumulative impacts on scenic vistas, 

scenic resources, visual character, or light and glare. 



Impacts (see Impact LU-1 in Section 5.2, Land Use and Land 

Use Planning, for description) 








Table 1-1 







Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 



Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 


Section 5.4: Population and Housing 

No impacts related to Population and Housing. NI NI NI NI NI NI None required. NI NI NI NI NI NI 

Overall Project Impact: NI 

Section 5.5: Cultural and Paleontological Resources 

Impact CP-1: Project construction would not cause a 

substantial adverse change in the significance of a 

historical resource. 

NI NI NI NI LS NA None required. NI NI NI NI LS NA 


Impact CP-2: Project construction could cause a 

substantial adverse change in the significance of a 

historical or unique archaeological resource. 

S S NI S S NA M-CP-2a: Distribute “ALERT” Sheet 

This mitigation measure applies to the Colma, South San 

Francisco, San Bruno South, and Millbrae sites only. 

At these sites, there is a potential for the inadvertent 

discovery of archaeological resources because all require 

excavation into previously undisturbed soils. 

LSM LSM NI LSM LSM NA 





Table 1-1 







Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 



Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 


To avoid any potential adverse effects on accidentally 

discovered buried cultural resources, as defined in CEQA 

Guidelines Section 15064.5(a)(c), the SFPUC shall distribute 

the San Francisco Planning Department’s archaeological 

resource “ALERT” sheet to the project prime contractor; to 

any subcontractors (including firms subcontracted to perform 

demolition, excavation, grading, foundation, and pile 

driving); and/or to any utilities firms involved in any and all 

soil-disturbing activities within the PPSU C-APE. 

Prior to any soil-disturbing activities, each contractor shall be 

responsible for ensuring that the ALERT sheet is circulated to 

all field personnel, including machine operators, field crew, 

pile drivers, and supervisory personnel. The SFPUC shall 

provide the Environmental Review Officer (ERO) with the 

sign-in sheet from the responsible parties (i.e., prime 

contractor, subcontractor[s], and utilities firm) confirming 

that all field personnel have received copies of the ALERT 

sheet. 

Should any indication of an archeological resource be 

encountered during any soil-disturbing activity, SFPUC 

and/or the contractor shall immediately suspend the soildisturbing 

activities within 50 feet of the discovery, and shall 

notify the ERO immediately. 




Table 1-1 







Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 



Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 


Ground-disturbing activities in the vicinity of the discovery 

shall remain suspended until the ERO has determined what 

additional measures should be undertaken. 

If an archaeological resource is present, the archaeological 

monitor retained for the project (see Mitigation Measure 

M-CP-2b) shall identify and evaluate the archaeological 

resource. The archaeological monitor shall make a 

recommendation as to what action, if any, is warranted. 

Based on this information, the ERO may require, if warranted, 

specific additional measures to be implemented by the 

SFPUC. These measures might include preservation in situ of 

the archaeological resource; or an archaeological evaluation 

program (see Mitigation Measure M-CP-2c). 

M-CP-2b: Conduct Archaeological Monitoring in 

Accordance with Approved Archaeological Monitoring Plan 


Francisco, and San Bruno South sites only. At these sites, 

portions of the C-APE are of elevated archaeological 

sensitivity. 




Table 1-1 







Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 



Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 


The SFPUC will retain a qualified archaeologist meeting the 

Secretary of the Interior’s professional standards for 

archaeology and, as necessary, a Native American monitor to 

be present during specific ground disturbing activities at 

specific locations within the Colma, South San Francisco, and 

San Bruno South sites as stipulated within the Archaeological 

Monitoring Plan (AMP) to be prepared for the project (URS, 

2012a). The monitoring shall be conducted in accordance with 

the approved AMP. Archaeological monitoring is not 

required at the Millbrae site, given the low archaeological 

sensitivity of the soils occurring within that portion of the 

C-APE. 

M-CP-2c: Prepare and Comply with an Archaeological 

Evaluation Plan and Evaluation Report 


Francisco, San Bruno South, and Millbrae sites only. In the 

event archaeological resources are inadvertently exposed 

during any project-related construction, all ground-disturbing 

work within 50 feet of the discovery shall immediately cease, 

and the SFPUC Project Manager and the ERO shall be notified 

immediately. 




Table 1-1 







Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 



Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 


In consultation with the SFPUC, the ERO, and the San 

Francisco Planning Department’s Environmental Planning 

Division archaeologist or Designee, the monitoring 

archaeologist shall prepare an Archaeological Evaluation Plan 

(AEP) consistent with the requirements of the San Francisco 

Planning Department, Environmental Planning Division (EP) 

WSIP Archaeological Guidance No. 5. 

The AEP shall create a program to determine the potential of 

the expected resource to meet the California Register 

criteria—particularly Criterion 4, the resource’s potential to 

address important research questions identified in the AEP— 

and the archaeologist shall submit this plan to the ERO for 

approval. The archaeologist shall then conduct an evaluation 

consistent with the ERO-approved AEP. The methods and 

findings of the evaluation shall be presented in an 

Archaeological Evaluation and Effects Report consistent with 

EP WSIP Archaeological Guidance No. 6, which shall be 

submitted to the ERO upon completion. 

Based on the conclusions of the Archaeological Evaluation 

and Effects Report, the Environmental Planning Division 

Archeologist or Designee shall determine if the project will 

adversely affect a CEQA-significant archaeological resource. 

If the project will have an adverse effect on such a resource, 

an Archaeological Research Design and Treatment Plan shall 




Table 1-1 







Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 



be prepared by the archaeologist and submitted to the ERO. 

The Archaeological Research Design and Treatment Plan shall 

be prepared consistent with the EP (formerly MEA) WSIP 

Archaeological Guidance No. 7. Once approved by the ERO, a 

data-recovery investigation and/or other treatment shall be 

conducted by the archaeologist. 

Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 


Impact CP-3: Project construction could result in a 

substantial adverse effect by directly or indirectly 

destroying a unique paleontological resource or site. 

S S NI S S NA M-CP-3: Prepare and Implement a Paleontological 

Resources Monitoring Program 


Francisco, San Bruno South, and Millbrae sites only. 

Prior to the initiation of any site preparation or start of 

construction, SFPUC shall retain a qualified professional 

paleontologist or a California Professional Geologist with 

appropriate paleontological expertise, as defined by the 

Society of Vertebrate Paleontology’s Conformable Impact 

Mitigation Guidelines Committee (SVP, 1995), to carry out a 

paleontological resources training program for construction 

workers and to develop a paleontological monitoring 

program, except at the San Bruno North site. The SFPUC shall 

require the paleontologist to be on call throughout the 

duration of ground-disturbing activities. At a minimum, the 

monitoring program shall include: 






Table 1-1 







Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 



Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 


Preparation of a Paleontological Monitoring Plan. Based on 

the results of the paleontological investigation completed for 

the PPSU project (URS, 2012b), the volume and depth of 

proposed soil excavations, and professional judgment, the 

paleontologist shall identify the specific locales and depths 

within the project components where geologic units of high 

paleontological sensitivity occur, and to determine the 

frequency in which monitoring will be undertaken to ensure 

the proper management of paleontological resources. The 

SFPUC shall review and approve the plan in consultation 

with the ERO. 

Paleontological Resources Training. All construction 

forepersons and field supervisors shall be trained in the 

recognition of potential fossil materials prior to the initiation 

of any site preparation or start of construction. Training on 

paleontological resources shall also be provided to all other 

construction workers, but may include videotape of the initial 

training and/or the use of written materials rather than inperson 

training by the qualified paleontologist. In addition to 

fossil recognition, the training shall convey procedures to 

follow if construction crews encounter potential fossil 

materials in the course of earthwork, excavation, or grading, 

as described below. 




Table 1-1 







Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 



Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 


Active Monitoring of Construction Sites for Paleontological 

Resources, if Recommended in the Paleontological 

Monitoring Plan. Paleontological monitoring shall consist of 

inspecting disturbed, graded, and excavated surfaces, as well 

as soil stockpiles and disposal sites in accordance with the 

schedule and methods outlined in the Paleontological 

Monitoring Plan. The monitor (i.e., the professional 

paleontologist or a designee of the paleontologist) shall have 

authority to divert grading or excavation away from exposed 

surfaces temporarily in order to examine disturbed areas 

more closely and/or recover fossils. The monitor shall 

coordinate with the construction manager to ensure that 

monitoring is thorough but does not result in unnecessary 

delays. If the monitor encounters a paleontological resource, 

he or she shall assess the fossil, and record or salvage it, as 

described above. 

Assessment and Salvage of Potential Fossil Finds. If the 

paleontological monitor or construction crews discover 

potential fossils, all earthwork or other types of ground 

disturbance within 50 feet of the find shall stop immediately 

until the qualified professional paleontologist can assess the 

nature and importance of the find. 




Table 1-1 







Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 



Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 


Based on the scientific value or uniqueness of the find, the 

monitor may record the find and allow work to continue, or 

recommend salvage and recovery of the fossil. The monitor 

may also propose modifications to the stop-work radius 

based on the nature of the find, site geology, and the activities 

occurring on the site. Recommendations for any necessary 

treatment shall be consistent with the SVP 1995 and 1996 

guidelines and currently accepted scientific practices. 

If required, treatment for fossil remains may include 

preparation and recovery of fossil materials so that they can 

be housed in an appropriate museum or university collection, 

and may also include preparation and publication of a report 

describing the finds. The monitor’s recommendations shall be 

subject to review and approval by the ERO or designee. The 

SFPUC shall be responsible for ensuring that treatment is 

implemented and reported to the San Francisco Planning 

Department. If no report is required, the SFPUC shall 

nonetheless ensure that information on the nature, location, 

and depth of all finds is readily available to the scientific 

community through university curation or other appropriate 

means. 

Impact CP-4: Project construction could result in a 

substantial adverse effect related to the disturbance of 

human remains. 

S S NI S S NA M-CP-4: Treatment of Inadvertently Discovered Human 

Remains 






Table 1-1 







Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 



Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 



Francisco, San Bruno South, and Millbrae sites only. The 

treatment of any human remains and associated funerary 

objects discovered during soil-disturbing activities shall 

comply with applicable state laws. Such treatment would 

include immediate notification of the San Mateo County 

coroner and, in the event of the coroner’s determination that 

the human remains are Native American, notification of the 

NAHC, which would appoint a Most Likely Descendant 

(MLD) (PRC Section 5097.98). 

The archaeological consultant, SFPUC, and MLD shall make 

all reasonable efforts to develop an agreement for the 

treatment, with appropriate dignity, of any human remains 

and associated objects (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[d]). 

The agreement would take into consideration the appropriate 

excavation, removal, recordation, analysis, custodianship, 

curation, and final disposition of the human remains and 

associated or unassociated funerary objects. 

The PRC allows 48 hours to reach agreement on these 

matters. 




Table 1-1 







Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 



Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 


If the MLD and the other parties could not agree on the 

reburial method, the SFPUC shall follow Section 5097.98(b) of 

the PRC, which states that “the landowner or his or her 

authorized representative shall reinter the human remains 

and items associated with Native American burials with 

appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject 

to further subsurface disturbance.” 

All archaeological work performed under this mitigation 

measure shall be subject to review by the ERO or designee. 

Impact C-CP: Project construction could result in a 


impacts on cultural resources such as archaeological 

sites (historical and/or unique) including those with 

human remains, historic architectural, or 

paleontological resources. 

S S NI S S NA M-CP-2a: Distribute “ALERT” Sheet (see above) 

M-CP-2b: Conduct Archaeological Monitoring in 

Accordance with Approved Archaeological Monitoring Plan 

(see above) 

M-CP-2c: Prepare and Comply with an Archaeological 

Evaluation Plan and Evaluation Report (see above) 

M-CP-3: Prepare and Implement a Paleontological 

Resources Monitoring Program (see above) 

M-CP-4: Treatment of Inadvertently Discovered Human 

Remains (see above) 






Table 1-1 







Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 



Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 


Impact TR-1: Project construction could substantially 

conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy 

establishing measures of effectiveness for the 

performance of the circulation system, taking into 

account all modes of travel. 

Section 5.6: Transportation and Circulation 

LS LS S LS LS LS M-TR-1: Maintain Traffic Flow on San Bruno Avenue West 

During the A.M. Peak Hour 

The SFPUC or its contractor(s) shall maintain eastbound 

traffic flow on San Bruno Avenue West during the a.m. peak 

period (generally, between 7 and 9 a.m.) if the temporary 

closure of the right-turn lane of the I-280 off-ramp and the 

eastbound San Bruno Avenue West lane adjacent to the 

project site occur simultaneously. Eastbound traffic flow 

would be maintained on San Bruno Avenue West during the 

2-week period when a portion of the right-hand eastbound 

lane of San Bruno Avenue would be required for construction 

activities by plating over the access pit. The SFPUC or its 

contractor(s) shall coordinate with the City of San Bruno and 

Caltrans, and the plan for maintaining access shall conform to 

the State’s Manual of Traffic Controls for Construction and 

Maintenance Work Areas (Caltrans, 2006). 



Impact TR-2: Project construction would not result in 

inadequate emergency access. 






Table 1-1 







Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 



Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 


Impact TR-3: Project construction activities could 

decrease the safety of public roadways for vehicles, 

bicyclists, and pedestrians. 

S S S S S S M-TR-3: Traffic Control Plan 

This mitigation measure applies to all project sites, as well as 

the common staging area. The SFPUC or its contractor(s) shall 

prepare and implement a traffic control plan. 

The plan shall conform to the State’s Manual of Traffic 

Controls for Construction and Maintenance Work Areas 

(Caltrans, 2006), where applicable. Elements of the traffic 

control plan shall include, but not be limited to, the following: 

General Measures for All Project Sites 

Advance warning signs shall be placed upstream of work 

areas advising motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians of 

the construction zone ahead in order to minimize 

hazards associated with construction activities, including 

the vehicular entry and egress of project-related 

construction activities. 

LSM LSM LSM LSM LSM LSM 


 

A public information system shall be developed and 

implemented to advise motorists, bicyclists, and nearby 

property owners of the impending construction activities 

(e.g., direct distribution of flyers to affected properties, 

email notices, portable message signs, and informational 

signs). 




Table 1-1 







Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 



Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 


 

 

 

 

All equipment and materials shall be stored within the 

designated work areas so as to avoid obstructing traffic. 

At all project sites, roadside safety protocols shall be 

implemented such as advance “Road Work Ahead,” 

“One Lane Road Ahead,” “Flagger Ahead,” “Prepare to 

Stop,” and “Trucks Entering Road” signs. Warning signs 

and speed control shall be provided to achieve speed 

reductions for safe traffic flow through the work zone. 

At all sites, pedestrian and bicycle access and circulation 

shall be maintained during project construction where it 

is safe to do so. Where appropriate, detours shall be 

included for bicycles and pedestrians in areas affected by 

project construction. 

To the maximum extent feasible, truck trips (i.e., haul 

trucks and heavy construction equipment) shall be 

scheduled outside of the a.m. (7 to 9 a.m.) and p.m. (4 to 

6 p.m.) peak commute periods. 




Table 1-1 







Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 



Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 


 

 

At all project sites, construction shall be coordinated with 

facility owners or administrators of sensitive land uses 

such as schools, police and fire stations, churches, 

hospitals, and residences. Facility owners or operators 

shall be notified in advance by the SFPUC regarding the 

timing, location, and duration of construction activities, 

and the locations of detours and lane closures. 

Roadway rights-of-ways shall be repaired or restored to 

their original conditions or better upon completion of 

construction. 

Specific Measures for Project Sites 

At the Colma site, construction worker parking shall be 

accommodated within the project area boundary. 

 

At the South San Francisco site, flaggers shall be 

provided at new project driveway on West Orange 

Avenue to facilitate pedestrian travel adjacent to the 

project site. Construction worker parking shall be 

accommodated within the project staging area, or within 

the common staging area; carpooling between the South 

San Francisco site and the common staging area shall be 

established. 




Table 1-1 







Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 



Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 


 

 

At the San Bruno North site, the construction contractor 

shall obtain an encroachment permit from Caltrans, and 

comply with Caltrans requirements for traffic control 

activities within the State right-of-way, as described in 

Section 3.10, Required Permits. Construction worker 

parking on local residential streets shall be limited to 

10 vehicles. The remaining workers shall park at the 

common staging area, and carpooling between the San 

Bruno North site and the common staging area shall be 

established. 

At the San Bruno South site, travel lane closures on 

Whitman Way shall be limited during the a.m. (7 to 

9 a.m.) and p.m. (4 to 6 p.m.) peak periods to the 

maximum extent feasible. 

Outside of allowed working hours or when work is not 

in progress, Whitman Way shall be restored to normal 

operations by covering all trenches with steel plates. 

When sidewalk closures are required on Whitman Way, 

pedestrian detour routes shall be maintained. 




Table 1-1 







Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 



Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 


At the intersection of Shelter Creek Lane and the 

driveway to the Shelter Creek Condominiums 

(Intersection #5), the construction contractor shall 

provide flaggers to facilitate truck access into and out of 

the project work area at the Shelter Creek 

Condominiums. Access to lower Garage 4, Lot B, and 

Lot C shall be maintained to the maximum extent 

feasible, and alternative fire access to building #3B shall 

be maintained. 

The construction contractor shall be required to have 

ready at all times the means necessary to accommodate 

emergency vehicles, such as plating over excavations 

through the use of steel place to provide for a fire lane 

with a minimum width of 12 feet. The traffic control plan 

shall include flaggers with radio communication to allow 

ingress/egress to the parking areas. 




Table 1-1 







Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 



Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 


Flaggers shall be provided on Courtland Drive at the 

construction vehicle access to the staging area within the 

Peninsula High School site, to reduce the potential for 

conflicts between construction vehicles and vehicles 

destined to other parking or passenger loading/ 

unloading areas within the site. If construction activities 

occur on weekends, flaggers shall be provided. 

Plans and Specifications at 65 percent design completion, 

along with the traffic control plan, shall be submitted to 

the San Bruno Fire Marshal when available for review 

and comment. 

Construction worker parking shall be accommodated 

within the project area boundary. 

 

At the Millbrae site, the SFPUC or the construction 

contractor shall coordinate with the schedule of schools 

to minimize impacts on school operations to the 

maximum extent feasible. At the Millbrae site, to the 

maximum extent feasible, construction haul trips shall 

not be conducted prior to 9 a.m. or after 3 p.m. when 




Table 1-1 







Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 



Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 


children are traveling to and from the Meadows 

Elementary School and the Glen Oaks/Millbrae 

Montessori School. Similarly, if determined appropriate 

by the school administrators, the SFPUC or the 

construction contractor shall provide traffic control 

officers at the intersections of Helen Drive/Larkspur 

Drive (Intersection #9) near the Meadows Elementary 

School, and Santa Margarita Avenue/Capuchino Drive 

(Intersection #11) near the Glen Oaks/Millbrae 

Montessori School. 

If sidewalk closures are required on Ridgewood Drive, 

pedestrian detour routes shall be provided. Construction 

worker parking shall be accommodated on-street. 

 

At the Common Staging Area, construction worker 

parking for the PPSU project shall be accommodated 

within the site, as feasible. 

Impact TR-4: Vehicle trips generated during project 

operation and maintenance activities would not 

substantially conflict with an applicable congestion 

management program. 






Table 1-1 







Impact C-TR: Project construction could result in a 


traffic increases and safety hazards on local and regional 

roads. 

Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 



S S S S S S M-TR-1: Maintain Traffic Flow on San Bruno Avenue West 

During the A.M. Peak Hour, (see above) 

M-TR-3: Traffic Control Plan (see above) 

M-C-TR: Assign a SFPUC Water System Improvement 

Program Projects Construction Coordinator 


the common staging area. Due to the potential for 

overlapping project activities and the operation of 

construction vehicles to affect travel along local roadways, the 

SFPUC shall assign a qualified construction coordinator 

responsible for coordinating the project-specific traffic control 

plan developed as part of Mitigation Measure TR-3: Traffic 

Control Plan with other SFPUC projects, including, but not 

limited to the Regional GSR project and the HTWTP Long- 

Term Improvements project. 

Throughout the construction schedule for the SFPUC projects 

in the Water System Improvement Program Peninsula 

Region, the SFPUC construction coordinator shall work with 

local and regional agencies to minimize local and regional 

traffic impacts, and shall incorporate these measures into the 

SFPUC’s project-specific traffic control plans. 

Such measures could include, but would not be limited to, 

monitoring during construction to identify intersections or 

areas of problematic cumulative congestion or hazard; and rerouting 

or coordinating the timing of vehicular or truck trips 

to avoid or minimize such congestion or hazard. 

Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 







Table 1-1 







Impact NO-1: Daytime construction activities could 

result in substantial temporary increases in ambient 

daytime noise levels that could interfere with nearby 

land uses. 

Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 


Section 5.7: Noise 


S S S S S LS M-NO-1: Prepare and Implement Administrative and 

Source Controls 

This mitigation measure applies to all project sites, but does 

not apply to the common staging area. 

The SFPUC shall include in construction contract 

specifications the requirement to prepare a noise control plan. 

The contractor shall submit a noise control plan, prepared by 

a qualified noise consultant, to the SFPUC for review and 

approval at least 21 days before the start of mobilization/ 

construction. The SFPUC shall require the noise consultant to 

be a board-certified Institute of Noise Control Engineering 

member or other qualified consultant or engineer, to be 

approved by the SFPUC project construction manager. The 

noise control plan shall contain performance standards based 

on the more-restrictive of the 70 dBA Leq speech interference 

threshold and the limits established in noise ordinances of 

San Mateo County, the Town of Colma, and the cities of San 

Bruno and Millbrae. The noise control plan shall identify the 

applicable threshold for each project site. The noise control 

plan shall, at a minimum, contain the following elements: 

Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 


LSM SUM SUM SUM SUM LS 

Overall Project Impact: SUM 




Table 1-1 







Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 



Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 


 

 

Location of equipment, parking, and other noise 

generating sources. 

Detailed list of potential noise control methods to meet 

the performance standards. Locations where it is not 

feasible to meet the performance standards shall be 

identified 

 

 

 

 

Proposed staging and schedule of noise control 

measures. 

Anticipated performance of noise control measures. 

Number and location of monitoring locations and 

relation to stationary noise controls and sensitive 

receptors. 

Schedule for ongoing monitoring and reporting of 

construction noise levels to meet performance standards. 

Monitoring shall occur at least weekly, or more often if 

needed, in response to complaints. 

Specific noise control measures that shall be contained in the 

plan may include, but are not limited to, the following: 

a) Best available noise control techniques (including 

mufflers, intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures, and 

acoustically attenuating shields or shrouds) will be used 

for all equipment and trucks in order to minimize 

construction noise impacts. 




Table 1-1 







Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 



Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 


b) If impact equipment (e.g., concrete/rock breaker, rock 

drill) is used during project construction, hydraulically or 

electric-powered equipment will be used to avoid the 

noise associated with compressed-air exhaust from 

pneumatically powered tools. However, where use of 

pneumatically powered tools is unavoidable, an exhaust 

muffler on the compressed-air exhaust will be used (a 

muffler can lower noise levels from the exhaust by up to 

10 dBA). External jackets on the tools themselves will be 

used, which could achieve a reduction of 5 dBA. Quieter 

procedures, such as drilling or vibratory methods rather 

than impact equipment, will be used. 

c) Alternative shoring installation techniques, such as 

beam-and-plate or drilled soldier piles, shall be 

employed to meet noise thresholds. 

d) The use of vibratory rollers and pile drivers shall be 

limited to the hours between 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. 

e) Locate stationary noise sources away from sensitive 

receptors. If the sources must be located near receptors, 

adequate muffling (with enclosures where appropriate) 

will be used to ensure performance standards are met. 

Enclosure openings or vents will face away from 

sensitive receptors. If any stationary equipment (pumps, 

ventilation fans, generators) is operated beyond the 

ordinance time limits, this equipment will conform to the 

affected jurisdiction’s noise limits. 




Table 1-1 







Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 



Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 


f) Erect temporary noise barriers to maintain construction 

noise levels at or below the performance standards. 

Barriers shall be constructed with a solid material with a 

density of at least 2 pounds per square foot with no gaps. 

The location and specification of the barriers shall be 

determined by the approved noise consultant as part of 

the noise control plan. 

g) Designate a project liaison to be responsible for 

responding to noise complaints during construction. The 

name and phone number of the liaison will be 

conspicuously posted at construction areas and on all 

advanced notifications. The liaison will take steps to 

resolve complaints, including the arrangement of 

periodic noise monitoring, if necessary. Results of noise 

monitoring will be presented at regular project meetings 

with the project contractor, and the liaison will 

coordinate with the contractor to modify any 

construction activities that generated excessive noise 

levels. 

h) In the event of noise complaints, the contractor shall 

provide information to the SFPUC within 48 hours of 

being notified of the complaint regarding the noise levels 

measured and activities that correspond to the 

complaints. 




Table 1-1 







Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 



Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 


The SFPUC will compare the noise levels to the 

information in the noise control plan, and the 

effectiveness of the noise control measures will be 

verified by the contractor. The contractor will be 

responsible for the correct installation and use of all 

implemented noise control measures and for complying 

with noise specifications. 

To mitigate the contribution to elevated noise levels from 

back-up alarms, the contractor may use administrative 

controls instead of audible back-up alarms, subject to safety 

priorities and consistency with state and federal worker 

safety laws. Administrative controls may include designing 

traffic patterns at the project sites to minimize the need for 

backward movement, or requiring a spotter or flagger in clear 

view of the operator to direct the backing operation, or 

requiring the operator to dismount and circle the vehicle 

immediately prior to starting a reverse operation. 

Alternatively, the SFPUC may consult with the California 

Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) to 

determine whether additional noise reductions may be 

achieved through Cal/OSHA-approved alternatives to backup 

alarms without compromising site safety. 




Table 1-1 







Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 



Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 


If Cal/OSHA indicates that such alternatives are a viable 

option and the SFPUC, in consultation with the contractor, 

determines that site safety would not be compromised, then 

the contractor shall apply for a variance from Cal/OSHA and 

use such alternatives consistent with Cal/OSHA 

requirements. Such alternatives could include, but are not 

limited to: 

 

“Smart” alarms that have an audible range of 77 to 

103 dBA (but limit the warning signal to 5 dBA over 

ambient noise levels). 

 

Radar presence-sensing alarms that identify objects in the 

reversing path of a truck. 

 

Use of “bbs-tek” broadband back-up alarm systems that 

use a broadband sound instead of a more noticeable 

single-frequency sound. 

 

Use of strobe lights instead of audible alarms. 

The administrative source controls and alternatives identified 

above that are approved by Cal/OSHA instead of back-up 

alarms shall be included in the noise control plan. If none of 

these alternatives to back-up alarms can be implemented, the 

use of back-up alarms shall be minimized by routing the 

trucks and equipment through sites in a manner that reduces 

the need to back up. 




Table 1-1 







Impact NO-2: Nighttime construction and dewatering 

activities could result in substantial temporary increases 

in ambient nighttime noise levels that could interfere 

with nearby land uses. 

Impact NO-3: Construction activities could result in 

exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in 

excess of standards established in the local general plan 

or noise ordinance. 

Impact NO-4: Construction activities could result in 

exposure of persons or structures to generation of 

excessive groundborne vibration 

Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 



NI NI S S S NI M-NO-1: Prepare and Implement Administrative and 


(see above) 

S NI S NI S S M-NO-1: Prepare and Implement Administrative and 


(see above) 

M-NO-3a: Limit Hours of Construction at Colma Site 

This mitigation measure applies to the Colma site. Any 

construction work conducted within the Town of Colma shall be 

limited to the hours established in the Town noise ordinance 

(weekdays 7:00 a.m. to 8 p.m. and Saturdays 10 a.m. to 6 p.m.), 

unless determined otherwise by the Colma building official. 

M-NO-3b: Limit Hours of Construction at Millbrae Site 

This mitigation measure applies to the Millbrae site. Except for 

dewatering activities, any construction work conducted within 

the City of Millbrae shall be limited to the hours established in the 

City noise ordinance (weekdays 7:30 a.m. to 7 p.m.; Saturdays 8 

a.m. to 6 p.m.; and Sundays and holidays 9 a.m. to 6 p.m.). 

LS S S S S LS M-NO-4: Develop and Implement Vibration Planning, 

Monitoring, and Reporting 

This mitigation measure applies to the South San Francisco, 

San Bruno North, San Bruno South, and Millbrae sites. 

Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 


NI NI SUM LSM LSM NI 


LSM NI SUM NI SUM LSM 


LS LSM SUM LSM LSM LS 





Table 1-1 







Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 



Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 


The SFPUC shall include in construction contract 

specifications the requirement to prepare and implement a 

vibration control plan. The contractor shall submit a vibration 

control plan, prepared by a qualified vibration consultant, to 

the SFPUC for review and approval at least 21 days before the 

start of mobilization/construction. The vibration control plan 

shall contain measures to reduce construction-related 

vibration to meet the 0.3 in/sec PPV damage potential 

threshold. In addition, at the San Bruno North site, the plan 

shall contain measures to reduce construction-related 

vibration to meet the 0.01 in/sec PPV nighttime annoyance 

potential threshold, to the extent feasible. 

The vibration control plan shall, at a minimum, contain the 

following elements: 

 

Procedures outlining the coordination among the SFPUC, 

the contractor, field monitors, and property owners. 

 

Address the use of low-vibration equipment (or using 

lower power equipment or lower power setting) and 

methods when working near residential receptors. 

Specific vibration control measures that could be addressed in 

the plan include, but are not limited to, the following: 




Table 1-1 







Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 



Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 


a) Avoiding or reducing simultaneous operation of multiple 

pieces of construction equipment in proximity to 

buildings. 

b) The use of vibratory rollers and pile drivers shall be 

limited to the hours between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. 

c) Continuous monitoring of vibration levels when 

vibratory equipment is in use within 50 feet of residential 

receptors. 

d) Continuous monitoring of pile driving vibration levels 

within 150 feet of residential receptors. 

e) Pile driving is not to occur within 60 feet of residential 

structures; the contractor must provide trench shoring 

using another less-vibration-intensive method within 

60 feet of residential structures. 

f) Weekly reporting of the vibration monitoring results. 

If construction vibration monitoring demonstrates that the 

project-generated vibration is lower than the values 

estimated, then the SFPUC could allow these activities to be 

conducted within the buffer zones, based on evaluation of 

monitoring data by a qualified vibration consultant. 

The SFPUC will consult with a California-licensed 

geotechnical engineer to develop procedures to reduce 

vibration impacts on adjacent sensitive receptors. 




Table 1-1 







Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 



Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 


The SFPUC will ensure that the construction contractor 

follows the recommendations of the final geotechnical report 

regarding excavation and construction. The SFPUC will also 

ensure that the construction contractor monitors adjacent 

residential receptors during construction as recommended by 

the geotechnical engineer. 

The construction contractor will use low-vibration equipment 

and appropriate trench shoring when working close to 

buildings, when required by the geotechnical engineer. If 

necessary, trench shoring near buildings will be designed 

with the capacity to support the soil loading, as determined 

by the project structural and/or geotechnical engineer. The 

construction contractor will monitor the building until the 

trench is backfilled. 

SFPUC and the contractor will coordinate with property 

owners to attempt to gain property access where necessary 

for vibration monitoring. Where access is granted, the SFPUC 

shall conduct monitoring to assess construction vibration 

impacts on adjacent buildings. The SFPUC shall assess the 

building’s pre-construction conditions, identify potential 

sources of background vibration, and monitor construction 

vibration near adjacent residential receptors using 

appropriate monitoring equipment. 




Table 1-1 







Impact C-NO: Construction of the proposed project 

could result in a cumulatively considerable contribution 

to cumulative noise and vibration impacts. 

Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 



The SFPUC will coordinate with the construction contractor 

to adjust construction techniques so as to keep vibration 

levels below the 0.3 in/sec PPV threshold potential damage 

criterion. The SFPUC will conduct visual surveys during 

construction, monitor for cracks and other damage, and 

conduct a post-construction structural evaluation. 

SFPUC will provide outreach and information to affected 

residential receptors regarding projected vibration. At a 

minimum, this will be provided to residences with structures 

within approximately 200 feet of construction activities. For 

residential structures within these zones, the SFPUC will 

convey to the owners the fact that structural damage occurs at 

very high vibration levels, far above the threshold of human 

perception, and that vibration from construction activities 

will be monitored to prevent structural damage. 

S LS NI NI LS LS M-NO-1: Prepare and Implement Administrative and 


(see above) 

Section 5.8: Air Quality 

Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 


LSM LS NI NI LS LS 


Impact AQ-1: Project construction could violate air 

quality standards or contribute significantly to an 

existing air quality violation. 

S S S S S S M-AQ-1: BAAQMD Basic Construction Measures 

This mitigation measure applies to all project sites and the 

common staging area. 






Table 1-1 







Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 



Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 


The SFPUC shall post one or more publicly visible signs with 

the telephone number and person to contact at the SFPUC 

with complaints related to excessive dust or vehicle idling. 

This person shall respond to complaints and, if necessary, 

take corrective action within 48 hours. The telephone number 

and person to contact at the BAAQMD’s Compliance and 

Enforcement Division shall also be provided on the sign(s) in 

the event that the complainant also wishes to contact the 

applicable air district. 

In addition, to limit dust, criteria pollutants, and precursor 

emissions associated with project construction, the following 

BAAQMD-recommended Basic Construction Measures shall 

be included in all construction contract specifications for the 

proposed project: 

 

 

 

All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, 

soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall 

be watered two times per day. 

All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose 

material offsite shall be covered. 

All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public 

roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street 

sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power 

sweeping is prohibited. 




Table 1-1 







Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 



Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 


 

 

 

 

Vehicle speeds on unpaved areas shall be limited to 

15 mph. 

All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved 

shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads 

shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless 

seeding or soil binders are used. 

Idling times for construction equipment (including 

vehicles) shall be minimized either by shutting 

equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum 

idling time to 5 minutes. Clear signage of this 

requirement shall be provided for construction workers 

at all access points to construction areas. 

All construction equipment shall be maintained and 

properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s 

specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a 

certified mechanic and determined to be running in 

proper condition prior to operation. 

Impact AQ-2: Project construction would not expose 

sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant 

concentrations. 






Table 1-1 







Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 



Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 


Impact AQ-3: Project construction would not create 

objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of 

people. 

Impact AQ-4: Project construction would not conflict 

with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air 

quality plan. 





Impact C-AQ: Project construction could result in a 

cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria 

pollutant for which the project region is a nonattainment 

area for an applicable federal or State ambient air quality 

standard (including releasing emissions that exceed 

quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). 

S S S S S S M-AQ-1: BAAQMD Basic Construction Measures (see 

above) 

Section 5.9: Greenhouse Gas Emissions 



Impact GG-1: Project construction would generate 

greenhouse gas emissions, but not at levels that would 

result in a significant impact on the environment, or that 

would conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or 

regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG 

emissions. 

Impact C-GG: Project construction would not result in a 

cumulatively considerable contribution to GHG 

emissions. 








Table 1-1 







Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 



Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 


Section 5.10: Wind and Shadow 

No impacts related to Wind and Shadow. NI NI NI NI NI NI None required. NI NI NI NI NI NI 


Section 5.11: Recreation 

Impact RE-1: The proposed project could temporarily 

degrade existing recreational uses during construction. 

NI LS NI LS S NI M-RE-1: Coordination with Green Hills Country Club 

Facility Managers 

This mitigation measure applies to the Millbrae site. 

The SFPUC shall work with the Green Hills Country Club 

prior to initiation of project activities on the golf course 

property, and shall coordinate with the club to implement 

measures that will facilitate maximum continued use of golf 

course facilities during project construction. 

Staging areas and access routes should be located to avoid use 

of fairways, where practicable. Continued play of the fifth 

hole (adjacent to the construction zone and staging area) 

should be allowed, to the extent feasible. 

NI LS NI LS LSM NI 





Table 1-1 







Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 



Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 


The access road through the driving range should be aligned 

to the maximum extent practicable to avoid sensitive, highly 

developed and expensive features such as the chipping green 

and unique bunkers, such as deep sand traps with steep 

slopes. In addition, alternatives to allow the continued use of 

the fifth hole should be considered. 

Impact C-RE: Construction of the project would not 

result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to 

cumulative impacts on recreational resources or uses. 

NI LS NI LS LS NI None required. NI LS NI LS LS NI 


Section 5.12: Utilities and Service Systems 

Impact UT-1: Project construction could result in a 

substantial adverse effect related to disruption of utility 

operations or accidental damage to existing utilities. 

S S S S S S M-UT-1a: Confirm Utility Line Information 


the common staging area. The SFPUC or its contractors shall 

locate overhead and underground utility lines that may be 

encountered during excavation work prior to opening an 

excavation. Information regarding the size, color, and location 

of existing utilities shall be confirmed before excavation 

activities commence. These utilities shall be highlighted on all 

construction drawings. 






Table 1-1 







Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 



Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 


M-UT-1b: Safeguard Employees from Potential Accidents 

Related to Underground Utilities 


the common staging area. While any excavation is open, the 

SFPUC or its contractors shall protect, support, or remove 

underground utilities as necessary to safeguard employees. 

As part of contractor specifications, the contractor(s) shall be 

required to provide updates on planned excavations for the 

upcoming week, and to specify when construction will occur 

near a high-priority utility. SFPUC construction managers 

shall attend tailgate meetings with contractor staff, as 

required by the California Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration, to record all protective and avoidance 

measures regarding such excavations. 

M-UT-1c: Notify Local Fire Departments 


the common staging area. In the event that construction 

activities result in damage to high-priority utility lines, 

including leaks or suspected leaks, the SFPUC or its 

contractors shall immediately notify local fire departments to 

protect worker and public safety. 




Table 1-1 







Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 



Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 


M-UT-1d: Emergency Response Plan 


the common staging area. Prior to commencing construction 

activities, the SFPUC shall develop an emergency response 

plan that outlines procedures to follow in the event of a leak 

or explosion. The emergency response plan shall identify the 

names and phone numbers of PG&E staff who would be 

available 24 hours per day in the event of damage or rupture 

of the high-pressure PG&E natural gas pipelines. The plan 

shall also detail emergency response protocols including 

notification, inspection, and evacuation procedures; any 

equipment and vendors necessary to respond to an 

emergency, such as an alarm system; and routine inspection 

guidelines. 

M-UT-1e: Ensure Prompt Reconnection of Utilities 



promptly notify utility providers to reconnect any 

disconnected utility lines as soon as it is safe to do so. 




Table 1-1 







Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 



Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 


M-UT-1f: Coordinate Final Construction Plans with 

Affected Utilities 



coordinate final construction plans and specifications with 

affected utilities. 


substantial adverse effect related to the relocation of 

regional or local utilities. 

S S S S S S M-UT-1a: Confirm Utility Line Information (see above) 


Related to Underground Utilities (see above) 

M-UT-1c: Notify Local Fire Departments (see above) 

M-UT-1d: Emergency Response Plan (see above) 

M-UT-1e: Ensure Prompt Reconnection of Utilities (see 

above) 


Affected Utilities (see above) 



Impact UT-3: Project construction would not result in a 

substantial adverse effect related to water supply 

availability. 

Impact UT-4: Project construction would not result in a 

substantial adverse effect related to landfill capacity. 








Table 1-1 







Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 



Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 



substantial adverse effect related to compliance with 

federal, State, and local statutes and regulations 

pertaining to solid waste. 

S S S S S S M-UT-5: Prepare and Implement a Construction Solid 

Waste Recycling Plan 


the common staging area. 

The SFPUC or its contractors shall prepare a construction 

solid waste recycling plan/waste management plan. The plan 

should identify the goal of salvaging the maximum amount of 

demolition debris at all projects sites. 

The plan should also include identification of the types of 

debris generated by the project and of how waste streams will 

be handled; and identification of actions to reuse or recycle 

construction debris and clean excavated soil to the extent 

possible. The plan shall include actions to divert waste with 

disposal in a landfill in accordance, at a minimum, with the 

solid waste diversion goal set by the California Integrated 

Waste Management Act, and with local ordinance 

requirements as follows: 



 

At the Colma site – 50 percent recycling of the waste 

tonnage from any demolition project where the waste 

includes concrete and asphalt (or 15 percent where there 

is no concrete and/or asphalt); and 50 percent recycling of 

waste tonnage; 




Table 1-1 







Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 



Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 


 

At the South San Francisco site and Common Staging 

Area – 100 percent recycling of inert solids; and at least 

50 percent recycling of the remaining construction and 

demolition debris tonnage; and 

Impact C-UT: Construction of the proposed project 


to cumulative impacts related to disruption or 

relocation of utilities. 

At the Millbrae site – 50 percent recycling of all waste 

generated for the project by weight, with at least 

25 percent achieved through reuse and recycling of 

materials other than source separated dirt, concrete and 

asphalt. 

No local ordinances apply at the San Bruno North and South 

sites; therefore, diversion shall be consistent with State law (at 

least 50 percent recycling of solid wastes). 

S S S S S S M-UT-1a: Confirm Utility Line Information (see above) 


Related to Underground Utilities (see above) 

M-UT-1c: Notify Local Fire Departments (see above) 

M-UT-1d: Emergency Response Plan (see above) 

M-UT-1e: Ensure Prompt Reconnection of Utilities (see 

above) 


Affected Utilities (see above) 






Table 1-1 







Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 



Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 


Section 5.13: Public Services 

No impacts related to Public Services. NI NI NI NI NI NI None required. NI NI NI NI NI NI 


Section 5.14: Biological Resources 

Impact BI-1: Construction of the proposed project could 

have a substantial adverse effect through habitat 

modification on special-status wildlife species. 

S S S S S S M-BI-1a: General Protection Measures 



The SFPUC shall ensure that the following general measures 

are implemented by the contractor(s) during construction to 

minimize or avoid impacts on biological resources: 



 

 

Construction contractor(s) shall minimize the extent of 

the construction disturbance as much as feasible, which 

shall be limited to boundaries of the project sites. 

For trees to be retained or trimmed: 

- A qualified arborist or a qualified biologist will 

identify trees to be retained, and exclusion fencing 

will be installed no closer than the drip line of these 

trees. 




Table 1-1 







Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 



Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 


- Prior to the start of construction, SFPUC or its 

contractors will install exclusion fencing at the limits 

of construction, outside the dripline of all trees 

bordering the limits. 

- All necessary tree pruning will be completed either 

by a certified arborist or by the contractor under the 

supervision of either an International Society of 

Arboriculture qualified arborist, American Society 

of Consulting Arborists consulting arborist, or a 

qualified horticulturist. 

 

 

 

Project-related vehicles shall observe a 15 mile-per-hour 

speed limit on unpaved roads in the work area, or as 

otherwise determined by the applicable regulatory 

agencies. 

The contractor shall provide closed garbage containers 

for the disposal of all food-related trash items (e.g., 

wrappers, cans, bottles, food scraps). All garbage shall be 

collected daily from the project site and placed in a 

closed container from which garbage shall be removed 

weekly. 

Construction personnel shall not feed or otherwise attract 

wildlife in the project area. 




Table 1-1 







Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 



Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 


 

 

 

 

No pets shall be allowed in the project area. 

No firearms shall be allowed in the project area. 

Staging areas shall be located at least 100 feet from 

riparian habitat, creeks, and wetlands, where feasible. If 

not feasible, then staging areas shall be situated outside 

of the dripline of riparian trees. If a 100 foot setback is not 

feasible due to field constraints, the project biologist will 

work with the contractor to determine where the silt 

fence erected for perimeter control should be placed, and 

what additional BMPs may be required to prevent 

construction spoils and sediment from leaving the work 

area. Sediment controls, such as silt fence or straw 

wattles, shall be erected along the perimeter of all 

construction and staging areas to minimize the transport 

of sediment from the site. If silt fence is used, the fence 

shall be installed so that the stakes face toward the 

outside of the work area. 

Exclusion fencing shall be erected along the boundaries 

of construction and staging areas to provide perimeter 

control, and to prevent construction personnel and 

activities from entering sensitive areas, as determined to 

be needed by the project biologist. 




Table 1-1 







Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 



Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 


 

If vehicle or equipment fueling or maintenance is 

necessary, it shall be performed in the designated staging 

area, consistent with Mitigation Measure M-HY-1: 

Preparation and Implementation of a SWPPP (see 

Section 5.16, Hydrology and Water Quality). 

M-BI-1b: Worker Training and Awareness Program 


the common staging area. The SFPUC shall ensure that 

mandatory biological resources awareness training is 

provided to all construction personnel as follows: 

 

 

The training shall be developed and provided by a 

qualified biologist or construction compliance manager 

familiar with the sensitive species that may occur in the 

project area. If a consulting biologist prepares the 

training program, SFPUC staff shall approve the 

program prior to implementation. 

The training shall be provided before any work, 

including vegetation clearing and grading, occurs within 

the work area boundaries. 




Table 1-1 







Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 



Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 


 

 

 

The training shall provide education on the natural 

history of the special-status species potentially occurring 

in the project area, and discuss the required mitigation 

measures to avoid impacts on the special-status species 

and the penalties for failing to comply with biological 

mitigation requirements. 

The environmental awareness training program for 

construction personnel shall include an orientation 

regarding the importance of preventing the spread of 

invasive nonnative plants. 

If new construction personnel are added to the project, 

the contractor shall ensure that they receive training prior 

to starting work. The subsequent training of personnel 

can include a videotape of the initial training and/or the 

use of written materials rather than in-person training by 

a biologist. 

M-BI-1c: Prepare and Implement a Vegetation Restoration Plan 

This mitigation measure applies to all project sites, but does 

not apply to the common staging area. The SFPUC or 

contractor shall prepare and implement a vegetation 

restoration plan with detailed specifications for minimizing 

the introduction of invasive weeds, and for restoring all 

temporarily disturbed areas. 




Table 1-1 







Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 



Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 


The plan shall include methods to ensure that the contractor 

successfully implements the vegetation restoration plan after 

the project is completed, so that proposed success criteria can 

be achieved subsequent to construction. 

 

 

 

The plan shall be developed by a qualified restoration 

ecologist familiar with the ecological requirements of 

special-status species. Willows removed from the South 

San Francisco site, north of Westborough Boulevard, 

shall be replaced with vegetation that would provide 

shelter for California red-legged frog, as specified in the 

SFPUC’s ROW Integrated Vegetation Management 

Policy (SFPUC, 2007). 

The plan shall be developed with the intent to replace (to 

the extent possible) the function and values of trees 

removed during the construction project with plants that 

are acceptable for planting within the SFPUC ROW. 

The plan shall indicate the best time of year for seeding 

to occur and will be consistent with the SFPUC’s ROW 

Integrated Vegetation Management Policy (SFPUC, 

2007). The restoration plan shall specify measures to 




Table 1-1 







Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 



Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 


remove and/or control weeds in the project area. For 

grassland and ruderal areas, the affected areas shall be 

reseeded with a native or noninvasive grass and forb 

seed mix. 

 

 

Replacement of ordinance-protected trees shall be 

completed as described in Mitigation Measure M-BI-4: 

Replacement of Trees to Be Removed. As specified 

therein, a qualified biologist shall conduct postconstruction 

monitoring of the replacement trees for 

5 years. 

The SFPUC or contractor shall ensure that topsoil is 

salvaged during grading and earthmoving activities 

(including during the preparation of spoils sites), 

stockpiled separately from subsoils, and protected from 

erosion (e.g., covered or watered); that composting 

amendments are added if necessary; and, if needed, that 

potentially compacted construction work areas are 

properly prepared prior to reuse of the soil in the postconstruction 

restoration of temporarily disturbed areas. 

The SFPUC shall ensure that a minimum of 12 inches of 

topsoil is salvaged; or, if there is less than 12 inches of 

topsoil, as much as practicable. 




Table 1-1 







Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 



Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 


 

 

 

 

Construction equipment shall arrive at the project areas 

free of soil, seed, and plant parts to reduce the likelihood 

of introducing new weed species. 

Any soil amendments, gravel, etc., required for 

construction and/or restoration activities that would be 

placed within the upper 12 inches of the ground surface 

shall be free of vegetation and plant material, and 

certified pathogen-free. Imported fill material shall be 

covered with the topsoil layer to prevent any imported 

seed bed from growing. 

Certified, weed-free, imported erosion-control materials 

(or rice straw in upland areas) shall be used exclusively, 

as applicable (this measure concerns biological material 

and does not preclude the use of silt fences, etc.). 

Erosion-control materials shall be natural and 

biodegradable, such as burlap wattles, and not have 

plastic netting, especially in areas with the potential for 

California red-legged frog, to prevent wildlife 

entanglement. 

No invasive nonnative plant species shall be used in any 

restoration plantings. 




Table 1-1 







Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 



Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 


M-BI-1d: Minimize Disturbance to Nesting Birds and 

Raptors 


the common staging area. As feasible, the SFPUC shall 

conduct tree and shrub removal in the project areas during 

the nonbreeding season (generally August 15 through 

February 15) for migratory birds, raptors, and special-status 

bird species. If trees cannot be removed outside of the bird 

breeding season, nesting bird surveys will be conducted on 

all trees prior to removal. 

If construction activities must occur during the bird breeding 

season (February 15 to August 15), the SFPUC shall retain a 

qualified wildlife biologist who is experienced in identifying 

birds and their habitat to conduct nesting-raptor surveys in 

and within 300 feet of the project area. Migratory passerine 

bird surveys shall be conducted within 50 feet of all work 

areas (as feasible) unless otherwise directed by CDFW. 

If an area is not accessible for survey, the project biologist 

shall make a determination if further survey is necessary, and 

may request assistance to enter properties that may need 

closer investigation. 




Table 1-1 







Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 



Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 


All migratory bird and active raptor nests within these areas 

shall be mapped. These surveys must be conducted within 2 

weeks prior to initiation of construction activities at any time 

between February 15 and August 15. If no active nests are 

detected during surveys, no additional mitigation is required. 

If migratory bird and/or active raptor nests are found in the 

project areas or in the adjacent surveyed area, the SFPUC 

shall establish a no-disturbance buffer around the nesting 

location to avoid disturbance or destruction of the nest site 

until after the breeding season or after a wildlife biologist 

determines that the young have fledged (usually late June 

through mid-July). The extent of these buffers would be 

determined by a wildlife biologist in consultation with CDFW 

and would depend on the species’ sensitivity to disturbance 

(which can vary among species); the level of noise or 

construction disturbance; line of sight between the nest and 

the disturbance; ambient levels of noise and other 

disturbances; and consideration of other topographical or 

artificial barriers. The wildlife biologist shall analyze and use 

these factors to assist the CDFW in making an appropriate 

decision on buffer distances. 




Table 1-1 







Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 



Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 


M-BI-1e: Pre-construction Surveys for Special-Status Bats 

and Avoidance and Minimization Measures 

This mitigation measure applies to the Millbrae site. Not more 

than 1 week prior to tree removal in the project areas, a 

qualified biologist (i.e., one familiar with the identification of 

bats and signs of bats) shall identify trees that might be 

potential day or maternity roosts. Bats may be present any 

time of the year. The biologist shall thoroughly search the tree 

or snag that provides appropriate habitat (trees with foliage 

or cavities or that are hollow) for the presence of roosting bats 

or evidence of bats. If bats are found or evidence of use by 

bats is present, the following procedures shall be 

implemented before felling the tree: 

1. Trees shall be removed under the warmest possible 

conditions. Peel any sections of the exfoliated bark off the 

tree gently and search for any roosting bats underneath. 

Create noise and vibrations on the tree itself. Noise and 

vibrations may include running a chain saw and making 

shallow cuts in the trunk (where bark has been), and 

striking the tree base with fallen limbs or tools such as 

hammers. 




Table 1-1 







Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 



Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 


Disturbance shall be near-continuous for 10 minutes, and 

then another 10 minutes shall pass before the tree is 

felled. When cutting sections of the trunk, if any hollows 

or cavities (such as woodpecker holes) are discovered, be 

especially careful to check for the presence of bats in 

those areas. Cut slowly and carefully at all times. If 

possible, section trunk near cavities to focus noise and 

vibrations, and open hollows by sectioning off a side. 

2. The SFPUC will ensure that trees are not removed or 

altered until CDFW has been contacted for guidance on 

measures to avoid and minimize disturbance of the bats. 

Additional measures may include monitoring trees, 

excluding bats from a tree until it is removed and/or 

restricting the timing of tree removal, and use of a 

construction buffer to avoid breeding disturbance of 

young before they are able to fly (for pallid bats, this 

period is between April and August). 

M-BI-1f: Mitigation for the Mission Blue Butterfly 

This mitigation measure applies to the Millbrae site. At the 

Millbrae site, not more than 2 weeks prior to the onset of 

work activities (including equipment mobilization) and 

immediately prior to commencing work, the qualified 




Table 1-1 







Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 



Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 


biologist shall survey grassland habitat in the project area for 

Mission blue butterfly and its larval host plant. As feasible, 

host plants identified within the project boundaries shall be 

fenced or flagged and avoided during construction. 

If it is infeasible to avoid host plants of the Mission blue 

butterfly, SFPUC shall restore the site to pre-construction 

conditions. 

M-BI-1g: Mitigation for San Francisco Dusky-Footed 

Woodrat Middens 

This mitigation measure applies to the South San Francisco 

and Millbrae sites. Not more than 2 weeks prior to the onset 

of work activities (including equipment mobilization) and 


biologist shall survey the areas to be disturbed within the 

Central Coast riparian scrub (South San Francisco site) and 

eucalyptus grove and coast live oak woodland (Millbrae site) 

for San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat and their nests. 

If no middens are found within such areas, no further action 

is required. 




Table 1-1 







Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 



Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 


If middens are found and can be avoided, the biologist shall 

direct the contractor in placing orange barrier fencing 

between the proposed construction clearing and the midden, 

allowing as much room as possible to avoid indirect 

disturbance to the midden, but no less than 2 feet from and 

along the construction side of the middens to protect them 

from construction activities. 

If avoidance is not feasible and the minimum fencing distance 

cannot be achieved, a qualified biologist shall disassemble 

middens or, if adjacent habitat is not suitable, trap and 

relocate woodrats out of the construction area (using livetraps) 

prior to the start of construction. In addition, the 

biologists shall attempt to relocate the disassembled midden 

to the same area where the woodrats are released. If young 

are present during disassembling, discontinue disassembling 

and inspect every 48 hours until young have relocated. The 

midden may not be fully disassembled until the young have 

left. 




Table 1-1 







Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 



Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 


M-BI-1h: Mitigation for the California Red Legged Frog 


site. Not more than 2 weeks prior to the onset of work 

activities (including equipment mobilization) and 


biologist shall survey the South San Francisco site project area 

for California red-legged frog, and potential refuge or 

burrow/estivation sites. As feasible, potential 

burrow/estivation areas identified within the project 

boundaries shall be temporarily fenced and avoided. 

At locations where potential refuge/estivation burrows are 

identified and cannot be avoided, burrows shall be excavated 

by hand or by other means by a qualified biologist, approved 

by the CDFW and USFWS, prior to construction. If a burrow 

is occupied, the individual animal shall be moved to suitable 

habitat within 0.25 mile of the project area, or other location 

as agreed by the appropriate agencies, where a natural 

burrow or artificial burrow will be constructed of PVC pipe. 

Even if California red-legged frog species are not found at the 

site, temporary exclusion fencing shall be installed as 

described below to prevent movement of the species. 




Table 1-1 







Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 



Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 


At the beginning of each work day at the South San Francisco 

site that includes initial ground disturbance, including 

grading, excavation, and vegetation removal activities, a 

qualified biological monitor shall conduct on site monitoring 

for California red-legged frog in the area where ground 

disturbance shall occur, as follows: 

 

 

The South San Francisco site shall be surveyed prior to 

any ground disturbing or vegetation removal activities. 

Prior to the start of construction at the South San 

Francisco site, the contractor, in coordination with a 

qualified biologist, shall install wildlife exclusion fencing 

to prevent species such as California red-legged frog 

from moving through the project site. If a silt fence is 

used as an exclusion fence, it shall be installed with the 

stakes on the inside of the work area (facing construction) 

so that wildlife cannot climb up the stakes to enter the 

construction zone. The SFPUC shall ensure that the 

temporary fencing is continuously maintained until all 

construction activities are completed, and that 

construction equipment is confined to the designated 

work areas. 




Table 1-1 







Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 



Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 


The fencing shall be made of suitable material that does 

not allow the species to pass through, and the bottom 

shall be buried to a depth of 6 inches (or to a sufficient 

depth specified by the applicable resource agencies) so 

that these species cannot crawl under the fence. The 

fencing shall have one-way escape vents to allow for 

species to leave the site. 

 

 

 

Perimeter fences shall be inspected weekly to ensure they 

do not have any tears or holes, that the bottoms of the 

fences are still buried, and that no individuals have been 

trapped in the fences. 

Any California red-legged frogs found along and inside 

the fence shall be closely monitored until they move 

away from the construction area, or the biologist may be 

brought in to relocate the frog as described above. 

All open trenches or holes and areas under parked 

vehicles shall be checked daily for the presence of 

California red-legged frogs. 




Table 1-1 







Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 



Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 


 

 

 

All excavated or deep-walled holes or trenches greater 

than 2 feet shall be covered at the end of each workday 

using plywood or similar materials, or escape ramps 

shall be constructed of earth fill or wooden planks. Before 

such holes are filled, they shall be thoroughly inspected 

for trapped animals. 

In cases where excavations require dewatering, the 

intakes shall be screened with a maximum mesh size of 

5 millimeters. 

Project personnel shall be required to immediately report 

any harm, injury, or mortality of a special-status species 

during construction (including entrapment) to the 

construction foreman or biological monitor, and the 

construction foreman or biological monitor shall 

immediately notify the SFPUC. The SFPUC shall provide 

verbal notification to the USFWS Endangered Species 

Office in Sacramento, California, and/or to the local 

CDFW warden or biologist (as applicable) within one 

working day of the incident. 




Table 1-1 







Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 



Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 


The SFPUC shall follow up with written notification to 

USFWS and/or CDFW (as applicable) within five 

working days of the incident. All observations of 

federally- and state-listed species shall be recorded on 

CNDDB field sheets and sent to the CDFW by the SFPUC 

or representative biological monitor. 

 

Willows removed from the South San Francisco site, 

north of Westborough Boulevard, shall be replaced with 

vegetation that would provide shelter for California redlegged 

frog, as specified in the SFPUC’s ROW Integrated 

Vegetation Management Policy (SFPUC, 2007). 

Replacement plantings will be included in the Vegetation 

Restoration Plan. 


have a substantial adverse effect on coast live oak 

woodland, central coast riparian scrub habitat, or other 

sensitive natural community. 

M-HY-1: Preparation and Implementation of a Storm Water 

Pollution Prevention Plan (see Impact HY-1 in Section 5.16, 

Hydrology and Water Quality, for description.) 

NI S NI NI LS NI M-BI-1a: General Protection Measures (see above) 

M-BI-1b: Worker Training and Awareness Program (see 

above) 

M-BI-1c: Prepare and Implement a Vegetation Restoration 

Plan (see above) 

NI LSM NI NI LS NI 





Table 1-1 







Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 



Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 


M-BI-2a: Minimize Disturbance to Riparian Habitat 


site. To minimize impacts to Central Coast riparian scrub and 

water quality in the drainage situated adjacent to the 

northwest end of the work area, a silt fence shall be placed 

along the work area boundaries adjacent to the drainage. This 

would prevent construction personnel from damaging 

riparian vegetation outside of the work area, and prevent 

sediment and debris from entering the drainage. 

M-BI-2b: Supplemental Measures for the Vegetation 

Restoration Plan 


site. The following activities shall be completed for the 

Vegetation Restoration Plan at the site: 

 

To facilitate preparation of the plan, the SFPUC shall 

ensure that prior to construction a qualified botanist (i.e., 

one experienced in identifying plant species in the project 

area) performs additional pre-construction surveys of the 

areas to collect more detailed vegetation composition 

data, including species occurrence, vegetation 

characterization (tree diameter size, etc.), and percent 

cover of plant species. Photo documentation shall be 

used to show pre-project conditions. 




Table 1-1 







Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 



Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 


 

 

 

If required, the SFPUC shall provide the vegetation 

restoration plan to the CDFW and RWQCB during the 

permitting process, as any vegetation to be removed may 

provide habitat for special-status species and may also be 

within areas under the jurisdiction of the Corps and the 

RWQCB. 

Although trees cannot be replanted within the SFPUC 

ROW, native plant species allowed for planting as 

described in the Right of Way Integrated Vegetation 

Management Policy (SFPUC, 2007) should be selected 

and planted in appropriate locations. Enhancement of the 

riparian corridor outside of the ROW may be 

incorporated into the Vegetation Restoration Plan (see 

Impact BI 1, above, for description). 

To ensure success, vegetation planted as part of the 

vegetation restoration plan will be monitored for 1 year 

following installation. In addition, monitoring shall be 

conducted for 5 years for any tree species planted. 


have a substantial adverse effect on jurisdictional 

waters. 

S S NI S S NI M-BI-1a: General Protection Measures (see above) 


above) 

LSM LSM NI LSM LSM NI 





Table 1-1 







Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 



Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 


M-BI-3: Avoidance and Protection Measures for 

Jurisdictional Water Bodies 

This mitigation measure applies to the Colma, San Bruno 

South, and Millbrae sites. The SFPUC and its contractors shall 

minimize impacts on waters of the United States and waters 

of the State by implementing the following measures: 

 

Erosion and sedimentation control measures such as a 

silt fence shall be installed adjacent to all water 

conveyance features to be avoided within 100 feet of any 

proposed construction activity, and signs installed 

indicating the required avoidance. If a 100 foot setback is 

not feasible due to field constraints, the project biologist 

or qualified environmental inspector will work with the 

contractor to determine where the silt fence erected for 

perimeter control should be placed, and what additional 

erosion and sedimentation controls, such as sediment 

traps, may be required to prevent construction spoils and 

sediment from leaving the work area. No equipment 

mobilization, grading, clearing, or storage of equipment 

or machinery, or similar activity, shall occur until a 

representative of the SFPUC has inspected and approved 

the fencing installed around these features. 




Table 1-1 







Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 



Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 


The SFPUC shall ensure that the temporary fencing is 

continuously maintained until all construction activities 

are completed. No construction activities, including 

equipment movement, material storage, or temporary 

spoil stockpiling, shall be allowed within the fenced areas 

protecting water features. 

 

Exposed slopes shall be stabilized immediately upon the 

completion of construction activities. 





be inconsistent with local policies or ordinances 

protecting biological resources, including trees. 

NI S S NI NI NI M-BI-1a: General Protection Measures (see above) NI LSM LSM NI NI NI 

M-BI-4: Replacement of Trees to Be Removed 


and San Bruno North sites only, where affected trees meet the 

parameters of the applicable ordinance outlined in the 

summary table below. The SFPUC will avoid and minimize 

impacts on ordinance-protected trees by implementing the 

following measures: 





Table 1-1 







Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 



Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 


 

 

 

A tree survey will be conducted prior to construction by 

a qualified arborist (defined as an International Society of 

Arboriculture certified arborist or consulting arborist 

who is a member of the America Society of Consulting 

Arborists) or a qualified biologist to identify the 

protected and heritage trees within the project footprint. 

Protected trees and heritage trees are defined in 

Table 5.14 6 (on the following page) for the City of South 

San Francisco and the City of San Bruno. 

Removal of ordinance-protected trees or work within the 

dripline of such trees will be avoided to the extent 

feasible during construction. If construction must occur 

within the dripline of a tree, a qualified arborist will 

determine where the protective fencing should be placed 

in order to protect the tree. 

Where feasible, native trees to be removed that are 

located within the existing SFPUC ROW, shall be 

replaced according to the SFPUC’s Right of Way 

Integrated Vegetation Management Policy. If it is not 

feasible to compensate for all native tree removal in 

SFPUC’s ROW in the vicinity of the project, then native 

tree compensation shall occur at a suitable offsite 

location. 




Table 1-1 







Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 



Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 


 

 

For each removed landscape tree that meets ordinance 

criteria, the SFPUC shall plant two 24-inch box size trees 

or one 36-inch box size replacement tree of similar 

species. If replanting trees on the same site is infeasible, 

the SFPUC shall find a suitable alternative location. 

A qualified biologist or arborist shall conduct postconstruction 

monitoring of replacement trees for 5 years. 

Any replacement trees that fail within the first 5 years 

shall be replaced. The survival period shall be extended, 

as necessary, until the planted trees have survived for a 

period of 5 years, and show signs that they are 

permanently established. 




Table 1-1 








Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 


Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 


Summary of Applicable Tree Ordinances 




Table 1-1 







Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 



Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 


Impact C-BI: Implementation of the project could result 

in a cumulatively considerable contribution to 

cumulative impacts on biological resources during 


S S S S S S M-BI-1a: General Protection Measures (see above) 


above) 

M-BI-1c: Prepare and Implement a Vegetation Restoration 


M-BI-1d: Minimize Disturbance to Nesting Birds and 

Raptors (see above) 

M-BI-1e: Pre-construction Surveys for Special-Status Bats 

and Avoidance and Minimization Measures (see above) 

M-BI-1f: Mitigation for the Mission Blue Butterfly (see 

above) 

M-BI-1g: Mitigation for San Francisco Dusky-Footed 

Woodrat Middens (see above) 

M-BI-1h: Mitigation for the California Red Legged Frog (see 

above) 

M-BI-2a: Minimize Disturbance to Riparian Habitat (see 

above) 

M-BI-2b: Supplemental Measures for the Vegetation 

Restoration Plan (see above) 






Table 1-1 







Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 



Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 


M-BI-3: Avoidance and Protection Measures for 

Jurisdictional Water Bodies (see above) 

M-BI-4: Replacement of Trees to Be Removed (see above) 




Impact GE-1: The project construction could result in 

substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. 

Section 5.15: Geology and Soils 

S S S S S S M-HY-1: Preparation and Implementation of a Storm Water 



M-BI-1a: General Protection Measures (see Impact BI-1a in 

Section 5.14, Biological Resources, for description.) 



Impact GE-2: The project would not be located on a 

geologic unit that is unstable or that would become 

unstable as a result of the project. 






Table 1-1 







Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 



Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 


Impact GE-3: The project operations would not expose 

people or structures to potential substantial adverse 

effects involving surface fault rupture, groundshaking, 

ground failure, or landslides. 

Impact GE-4: During project operations, the project sites 

are not likely to become unstable. 

Impact GE-5: The proposed project would not be 

located on expansive soils that could create substantial 

risks during project operations. 







Impact C-GE: Project construction could result in a 


impacts related to geology and soils. 

Impact HY-1: Project construction could substantially 

violate water quality standards or waste discharge 

requirements or degrade water quality as a result of 

erosion and sedimentation or an accidental release of 

hazardous chemicals. 



Hydrology and Water Quality, for description) 

M-BI-1a: General Protection Measures (see Impact BI-1 in 

Section 5.14, Biological Resources, for description) 

Section 5.16: Hydrology and Water Quality 


Pollution Prevention Plan 










Table 1-1 







Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 



Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 


In accordance with the Construction General Permit, the 

SFPUC or its contractor(s) would submit the required notices, 

prepare a SWPPP, and implement site-specific BMPs to 

control and reduce discharges of sediments and pollutants 

associated with construction stormwater runoff that could 

discharge to storm drains or creeks. 

BMPs would include, but are not limited, to the following. 

Scheduling 

 

Schedule construction to minimize ground disturbance 

during the rainy season to the extent practicable. 

 

 

Install erosion and sediment control BMPs prior to the 

start of any ground-disturbing activities. 

Provide plans to stabilize soil with vegetation or physical 

means in the event that rainfall is expected. Stabilize all 

disturbed soils as soon as possible following the 

completion of soil-disturbing activities. 

Erosion and Sedimentation 

Install silt fences or fiber rolls, or implement other 

suitable measures around the perimeters of the 

construction zone, staging areas, temporary stockpiles, 

and drainage features. 




Table 1-1 







Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 



Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 


 

 

 

 

 

Use filter fabric or other appropriate measures to prevent 

sediment from entering storm drain inlets. 

When dewatering, regulate discharge rate, use energy 

dissipation device(s), and install sediment barriers, as 

necessary, to prevent erosion, streambed scour, 

suspension of sediments, or excessive streamflow. 

Detain and treat water produced by construction site 

dewatering using sedimentation basins, sediment traps 

(when water is flowing and there is sediment), or other 

measures, to ensure that discharges to receiving waters 

meet applicable water quality objectives. 

Locate stockpiles a minimum of 50 feet away from 

concentrated flows of stormwater, water bodies, ditches, 

and inlets. Contain all stockpiles using perimeter controls 

such as berms, dikes, fiber rolls, silt fences, sandbag, 

gravel bags, or straw bale barriers. Cover all stockpiles 

with visqueen or other impermeable materials. 

Preserve existing vegetation in areas where no 

construction activity is planned or where construction 

activity will occur at a later date. 




Table 1-1 







Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 



Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 


 

Stabilize and revegetate disturbed areas as soon as 

possible after construction by planting or seeding and/or 

using mulch (e.g., straw or hay, erosion control blankets, 

hydromulch, or other similar material). 

Nonstormwater Control 

Prevent raw cement, concrete or concrete washings, 

asphalt, paint or other coatings, and oils or other 

petroleum products from entering watercourses or storm 

drains. If possible, all concrete waste and wash water 

should be returned with each concrete truck for disposal 

at the concrete batch plant. 

 

 

 

Locate the entrance and exit pit at each end of the jackand-bore 

construction area at least 10 feet from the creek, 

ditch, or canal. 

Cofferdam materials used to create dams upstream and 

downstream of diversion should be erosion-resistant and 

could include materials such as steel plate, sheetpile, 

sandbags, continuous berms, inflatable or water 

bladders. 

Keep construction vehicles and equipment clean; do not 

allow excessive buildup of oil and grease. 




Table 1-1 







Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 



Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 


 

 

 

 

Check construction vehicles and equipment daily at 

startup for leaks, and repair any leaks immediately. 

To prevent run-on and runoff and to contain spills, do 

not refuel vehicles and equipment within 100 feet of 

surface waters. 

Conduct all refueling and servicing of equipment with 

absorbent material or drip pans underneath to contain 

spilled fuel. Collect any fluid drained from machinery 

during servicing in leak-proof containers and deliver to 

an appropriate disposal or recycling facility. 

Contain fueling areas to prevent run-on and runoff and 

to contain spills. 

Tracking Controls 

Grade and stabilize construction site entrances and exits 

to prevent runoff from the site, and to prevent erosion. 

Employ street sweeping to remove any soil or sediment 

tracked off paved roads during construction. 




Table 1-1 







Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 



Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 


Waste Management and Hazardous Materials Pollution 

Controls 

 

Control the discharge of pollutants in stormwater from 

vehicles and equipment by using drip pans, spill kits, 

berms, and secondary containment. 

 

 

 

 

 

Remove trash and construction debris from the project 

area regularly. Provide an adequate number of waste 

containers with lids or covers to keep rain out of the 

containers, and to prevent trash and debris from being 

blown away during high winds. 

Locate sanitary facilities a minimum of 200 feet from 

creeks. 

Ensure the containment of sanitation facilities (e.g., 

portable toilets) to prevent discharges of pollutants to the 

stormwater drainage system or receiving water. 

Maintain sanitary facilities regularly. 

Store all hazardous materials in an area protected from 

rainfall and stormwater run-on, and prevent the offsite 

discharge of leaks or spills. 




Table 1-1 







Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 



Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 


 

 

 

Minimize the potential for contamination of surface 

water bodies by maintaining spill containment and 

cleanup equipment onsite, and by properly labeling and 

disposing of hazardous wastes. 

Inspect dumpsters and other waste and debris containers 

regularly for leaks, and remove and properly dispose of 

any hazardous materials and liquid wastes placed in 

these containers. 

Train construction personnel in proper material delivery, 

handling, storage, cleanup, and disposal procedures. 

BMP Inspection, Maintenance, and Repair 

Inspect all BMPs on a regular basis to confirm proper 

installation and function. 

Inspect all stormwater BMPs daily during storms. 

 

 

Inspect sediment basins, sediment traps, and other 

detention and treatment facilities regularly throughout 

the construction period. 

Provide sufficient devices and materials (e.g., silt fence, 

fiber rolls, and erosion blankets) throughout project 

construction to enable immediate repair or replacement 

of failed BMPs. 




Table 1-1 







Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 



Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 


 

Inspect all seeded areas regularly for failures, and 

remediate or repair as soon as feasible. 

Permitting, Monitoring, and Reporting 

Provide the required documentation for SWPPP 

inspections, maintenance, and repair requirements. 

 

 

 

 

Maintain written records of inspections, spills, BMPrelated 

maintenance activities, corrective actions, and 

visual observations of any offsite discharge of sediment 

or other pollutants, as required by the RWQCB. 

Monitor water quality to assess the effectiveness of 

control measures. 

Notify the RWQCB and other agencies as required (e.g., 

California Department of Fish and Wildlife) if the criteria 

for turbidity, oil/grease, or foam are exceeded, and 

undertake corrective actions. 

Immediately notify the RWQCB and other agencies as 

required (e.g., California Department of Fish and 

Wildlife) of any spill of petroleum products or other 

organic or earthen materials, and undertake corrective 

action. 




Table 1-1 







Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 



Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 


Post-Construction BMPs 

 

Revegetate all temporarily disturbed areas as required 

after construction activities are completed. 

 

Remove any remaining construction debris and trash 

from the project area and staging areas upon project 

completion. 

 

 

 

Phase the removal of temporary BMPs as necessary to 

ensure stabilization of the site. 

Maintain post-construction site conditions to avoid any 

unintended drainage channels, erosion, or areas of 

sedimentation. 

Correct post-construction site conditions as necessary to 

comply with the SWPPP and any other pertinent 

RWQCB requirements. 

Impact HY-2: Dewatering of excavated areas during 

project construction would not substantially deplete 

groundwater supplies or substantially interfere with 

groundwater recharge. 

Impact HY-3: Discharges of dewatering effluent from 

excavated areas during project construction would not 

substantially degrade water quality. 

LS LS LS LS LS NI None required. LS LS LS LS LS NI 







Table 1-1 







Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 



Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 


Impact HY-4: Discharges of treated water from existing 

and newly installed pipelines during project 

construction would not substantially degrade water 

quality. 



Impact C-HY: Project construction could result in a 


impacts on hydrology and water quality. 


Pollution Prevention Plan (see above) 

Section 5.17: Hazards and Hazardous Materials 



Impact HZ-1: Project construction would not create a 

significant hazard to the public or the environment 

through the routine transport, use, or disposal of 

hazardous materials. 



Impact HZ-2: Project construction could create a 

significant hazard to the public or the environment 

through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident 

conditions involving the release of hazardous materials 

into the environment. 

S S S S S S M-HZ-2a: Prepare and Implement a Hazardous Material 

Handling and Disposal Plan 


the common staging area. The contractor shall prepare, 

submit to SFPUC, and implement a Hazardous Material 

Handling and Disposal Plan during the construction of the 

project. The Hazardous Material Handling and Disposal Plan 

shall include, but would not be limited to, the following 

information: 






Table 1-1 







Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 



Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 


 

 

 

Results of the pre-construction hazardous assessment 

and descriptions of potential hazardous wastes to be 

generated. 

Onsite waste management protocols, which will require 

that all excavated materials suspected of being hazardous 

be inspected prior to initial stockpiling, and that 

excavated materials that are visibly stained, have 

noticeable odor, and/or are known or suspected to 

contain contaminants be stockpiled separately, to 

minimize the amount of material that may require special 

handling. 

Hazardous waste characterization protocols, and waste 

profiling and acceptance criteria. To properly evaluate 

suspected contaminated soil, a qualified professional will 

collect a representative sample and submit it to a 

California-certified laboratory for analysis of 

contaminants-of-concern. The analytical results will be 

used to classify the spoils as hazardous or nonhazardous 

waste, in accordance with applicable federal and state 

laws and regulations for offsite disposal at an 

appropriate disposal facility or for onsite reuse. 




Table 1-1 







Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 



Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 


 

Transportation and disposal for hazardous wastes in 

accordance with applicable federal and state regulations. 

 

Hazardous waste management documentation and 

reporting. 

M-HZ-2b: Develop and Implement a Hazardous Material 

Business Plan 


the common staging area. A Hazardous Material Business 

Plan (HMBP) shall be required when any of the following 

conditions are met: 

 

55 gallons or more of liquid hazardous material, such as 

fuel products, are present on site at any one project site; 

 

500 pounds of solid hazardous material are present at 

any one project site; 

 

 

 

200 cubic feet of compressed gases including flammable 

gases for welding are present at any one project site; 

Any amount of an extremely hazardous substance is 

present, as specified in 40 CFR Part 355, Appendix A or 

B; or 

Any amount of radiological materials that are present in 

quantities for which an emergency plan is required 

pursuant to 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, or 70. 




Table 1-1 







Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 



Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 


In the event that the above criteria are applicable to the 

construction activities, the contractor will prepare, submit to 

SFPUC, and implement a HMBP for the construction. The 

HMBP shall be certified by a qualified professional (such as a 

California-licensed civil engineer) from the contractor, and 

will include step-by-step procedures for the use, storage, and 

handling of hazardous materials during construction. The 

HMBP shall include, but not be limited to, the following 

elements: 

 

Descriptions of planned operation for which the HMBP is 

applicable; 

 

Procedures for handling, transporting, storing, and 

disposing all hazardous materials used for the project 

component activities; 

 

Location where the hazardous materials are stored; 

 

Spill prevention protocols; 

 

Protocols including response equipment to address any 

accidental spill and releases of hazardous materials to be 

used during the operation; 

 

Personnel training requirement to implement the HMBP; 

and 




Table 1-1 







Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 



Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 


 

Emergency response and spill contingency protocols to 

address any emergencies and contingencies resulting 

from hazardous chemicals or waste from the project 

components. 

The HMBP will be prepared in compliance with the 

requirements of the local environmental department (San 

Mateo County, SMCEH Division). 

M-HZ-2c: Develop and Implement an Health and Safety 

Plan 


the common staging area. This mitigation measure will be 

applicable when any of the following conditions is observed: 

 

Handling of hazardous materials during construction is 

required; 

 

Visual signs of hazardous wastes are observed during 

construction; or 

 

Potential presence of hazardous wastes is anticipated for 

the construction activities. 

Prior to the start of any construction activities, the contractor 

shall prepare, submit to SFPUC, and implement a Health and 

Safety Plan (HASP) to address chemical hazards identified for 

the construction. 




Table 1-1 







Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 



Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 


The contractor shall not start any construction activities until 

the contractor receives SFPUC’s notification that all submittal 

requirements regarding the health and safety plan have been 

fulfilled in accordance with the project contract bid and 

specification documentation. 

The HASP shall be consistent with all applicable CCR Title 8 

or other applicable regulations and SFPUC’s health and safety 

requirements. The HASP shall establish, in detail, the 

protocols necessary for the recognition, evaluation, and 

control of all hazards associated with the construction 

activities performed by the contractor and its subcontractors. 

The HASP will include, but not be limited to, the following 

major elements: 

 

Chemicals to be encountered, handled, or used; 

 

Chemical hazard analyses to identify potential health and 

safety hazards associated with the chemicals identified 

for the project; 

 

Chemical action levels for site worker safety; 

 

 

Name and qualifications of all the site health and safety 

personnel designated for the project; 

Health and safety organization for the project including, 

but not limited to, lines of authority, responsibility, and 

communication protocols 




Table 1-1 







Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 



Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 


Impact HZ-3: Project construction would not result in 

emissions or use of hazardous materials or substances 

within 0.25 mile of a school during construction. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Worker safety monitoring requirement and protocols; 

Confined space entry permit and plan, if applicable; 

Crane critical lift plan, if applicable; 

Fall protection and prevention plan; 

Personal protective equipment; 

Emergency response and contingency planning 

procedures, including emergency and first aid 

equipment; and information on the nearest emergency 

room, including address, phone number, and routing 

from each of the project sites; and 

Inspection, incident investigation, and reporting 

requirements, including documentation and record 

keeping procedures. 









Table 1-1 







Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 



Colma Site 




Millbrae Site 


Impact HZ-4: Project construction would not result in 

public airport-related aviation hazards during 

construction. 

Impact HZ-5: Project construction would not impair 

implementation of, or physically interfere with, an 

emergency response plan or emergency evacuation 

plan. 





Impact C-HZ: Construction of the proposed project 


to cumulative impacts related to hazards and hazardous 

materials. 

S S S S S S M-HZ-2a: Prepare and Implement a Hazardous Material 

Handling and Disposal Plan (see above) 

M-HZ-2b: Develop and Implement a Hazardous Material 

Business Plan (see above) 

M-HZ-2c: Develop and Implement an Health and Safety 




Hydrology and Water Quality, for description) 

Section 5.18: Mineral and Energy Resources 



Impact ME-1: Project construction would not encourage 

activities that would result in the use of large amounts 

of fuel, water, or energy, or use these resources in a 

wasteful manner. 





1.ExecutiveSummary 

 

Table11 

SummaryofImpactsandMitigationMeasures(Continued) 

ImpactSignificanceWithout 

MitigationMeasure 

ImpactSignificanceWith 

MitigationMeasure 

ImpactSummary 

ImpactCME:Projectimplementationwouldnotresult 

inacumulativelyconsiderablecontributiontotheuseof 

fuel,water,orenergyresourcesinawastefulmanner. 

NoimpactsrelatedtoAgriculturalandForest 

Resources. 

Source:Source:PPSUprojectanalysis,URS. 

Notes: 

NA=NotApplicable 

NI=NoImpact 

LS=LessthanSignificantimpact,nomitigationrequired 

LSM=LessthanSignificantImpactwithmitigation 

S=Significantimpact 

SUM=SignificantandUnavoidableimpact,withimplementationoffeasibleMitigation 

 

ColmaSite 

SouthSanFranciscoSite 

SanBrunoNorthSite 

SanBrunoSouthSite 

MillbraeSite 

CommonStagingArea 

MitigationMeasures 

LS LS LS LS LS LS Nonerequired. LS LS LS LS LS LS 

Section5.19:AgriculturalandForestResources 

ColmaSite 

SouthSanFranciscoSite 

SanBrunoNorthSite 

SanBrunoSouthSite 

MillbraeSite 

OverallProjectImpact:LS 

NI NI NI NI NI NI Nonerequired. NI NI NI NI NI NI 

OverallProjectImpact:NI 

CommonStagingArea 

SFPUCPeninsulaPipelinesSeismicUpgrade 198 EnvironmentalPlanningCaseNo.2011.0123E 


March2013


1.6 Alternatives to the Proposed Project 

Chapter 7, Alternatives, of this EIR evaluates two alternatives to the proposed project: 

 

 

Alternative 1: No Project Alternative. The SFPUC would not make improvements, and the 

SAPL2, SAPL3, and SSBPL would continue to operate as they do under existing conditions. 

Alternative 2: Sliplining Alternative. The SFPUC would construct improvements at the 

South San Francisco, San Bruno South, and Millbrae sites using a sliplining construction 

method instead of the proposed open-trench and jack-and-bore construction methods. In this 

method, a smaller-diameter new pipe is pushed or pulled through the existing pipe. 

Compared to the proposed project, sliplining would require less ground disturbance since 

pits (40 feet long by 12 feet wide) would be excavated at intervals along the existing pipeline, 

thereby potentially reducing significant and unavoidable noise impacts. Under this 

alternative, the PPSU project as proposed would be implemented at the Colma and San 

Bruno North sites. 

The impacts of the proposed project and those of the alternatives are summarized in Table 1-2. 

The No Project Alternative would avoid the significant unavoidable impacts resulting from 

construction of the proposed project in the absence of a major earthquake along the San Andreas 

Fault. However, during a probable seismic event and subsequent pipeline rupture, the No Project 

Alternative would likely result in greater or more severe environmental impacts, although the 

impact conclusion would remain the same for some impacts. For example, under Impact AE-2 

(new source of substantial light or glare), potential light and glare impacts could be reduced by 

measures that require that lighting to be shielded and directed specifically onto work areas to 

minimize light spillover, resulting in an impact that would be less than significant with 

mitigation (LSM), similar to the proposed project. However, due to the emergency nature of such 

repairs, it may be unlikely that such controls could be initially implemented, resulting in greater 

impacts than the proposed project while still resulting in the same overall impact conclusion 

(LSM). This alternative would not meet any of the project objectives. 

The Sliplining Alternative would have the same or fewer impacts than the proposed project, and 

in many cases, the intensity or severity of the impact would be reduced compared to the 

proposed project, although the impact conclusion would generally remain the same. For 

example, under Impact NO-1 (temporary increases in daytime noise levels), the noise levels 

would be reduced at some locations as a result of sliplining, while there would still overall be 

significant and unavoidable noise impacts even with mitigation (SUM). This alternative would 

meet some of the project objectives, but would provide a lower seismic reliability than the 

proposed PPSU project (G&E/GTC Joint Venture, 2011). Therefore, among the alternatives to the 

proposed project the Sliplining Alternative is considered environmentally superior. 

1.7 Areas of Controversy 

No areas of scientific or technical controversy have been identified for the proposed project. 

During the scoping meeting held on November 30, 2011, attendees commented on the scope of 


3Public Review Draft EIR March 2013


Table 1-2 

Comparison of Significant Impacts of the PPSU Project to Impacts of Alternatives 1 

Proposed 

Project 

Alternative 1 

No Project 

Alternative 

Alternative 2 

Sliplining 

Alternative 

Description 

Seismic 

upgrades to 

three SFPUC 

water 

transmission 

pipelines— 

SAPL2, SAPL3, 

and SSBPL—at 

five locations on 

the San Francisco 

Peninsula. 

Construction 

techniques 

would be 

primarily open 

trench. 

No pipeline repair/ 

replacement unless 

pipeline failure 

(assumed). 

Sliplining of 

pipeline segments 

at selected project 

sites to reduce 

environmental 

impacts. Relies on 

pushing smaller 

new pipe inside 

existing pipe; 

would reduce 

construction noise, 

volume of 

excavation, and 

truck trips. 

Ability to Meet SFPUC’s Objectives 

Would meet 

all project 

objectives. 

Would not meet 

any of the project 

objectives. 

Would meet some 

of the project 

objectives, but 

would have a lower 

seismic reliability 

than the proposed 

PPSU project. 

IMPACTS: 

Land Use and Land Use Planning 

Impact LU-1 Temporary impacts on existing 

character and land use disruptions 

Impact C-LU Contribution to cumulative impacts 

on existing land uses 

LSM Greater (SU) Reduced (LSM) 2 


Aesthetics 

Impact AE-2 New source of substantial light or glare LSM Greater (LSM) 3 Similar (LSM) 

Impact C-AE Contribution to cumulative impacts 

on scenic vistas, scenic resources, visual character, 

or light and glare 

LS Greater (SUM) Similar (LS) 

Cultural and Paleontological Resources 

Impact CP-2 Archaeological resources LSM Greater (SU) Reduced (LSM) 2 

Impact CP-3 Paleontological resources LSM Greater (SU) Reduced (LSM) 2 

Impact CP-4 Human remains LSM Greater (SU) Reduced (LSM) 2 

Impact C-CP Contribution to cumulative impacts on 

cultural resources 





Table 1-2 


(Continued) 

Proposed 

Project 

Alternative 1 

No Project 

Alternative 

Alternative 2 

Sliplining 

Alternative 

Transportation and Circulation 

Impact TR-1 Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, 

or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the 

performance of the circulation system 

LSM Greater (SU) Similar (LSM) 

Impact TR-2 Inadequate emergency access LS Greater (SU) Similar (LS) 

Impact TR-3 Safety of public roadways for vehicles, 

bicyclists, and pedestrians 

Impact C-TR Contribution to cumulative traffic increases 

and safety hazards on local and regional roads 



Noise 

Impact NO-1 Temporary increases in daytime noise levels SUM Greater (SU) Reduced (SUM) 2 

Impact NO-2 Nighttime noise levels SUM Greater (SU) Similar (SUM) 

Impact NO-3 Local general plan or noise ordinance standards SUM Greater (SU) Similar (SUM) 

Impact NO-4 Excessive groundborne vibration SUM Greater (SU) Similar (SUM) 

Impact C-NO Contribution to cumulative noise and 

vibration impacts 


Air Quality 

Impact AQ-1 Violate air quality standards LSM Greater (LSM) 3 Reduced (LSM) 2 

Impact AQ-2 Expose sensitive receptors to substantial 

pollutant concentrations 

LS Greater (LSM) Reduced (LS) 2 

Impact AQ-3 Create objectionable odors LS Greater (LSM) Reduced (LS) 2 

Impact C-AQ Contribution to cumulative air quality impacts LSM Greater (LSM) 3 Reduced (LSM) 2 

Recreation 

Impact RE-1 Temporarily degrade existing recreational uses LSM Greater (SU) Reduced (LSM) 2 

Impact C-RE Contribution to cumulative recreational impacts LS Greater (SU) Reduced (LS) 2 

Utilities and Service Systems 

Impact UT-1 Disruption of utility operations or accidental 

damage 


Impact UT-2 Relocation of regional or local utilities LSM Greater (SU) Reduced (LSM) 2 

Impact UT-3 Water supply availability LS Greater (SU) Similar (LS) 

Impact UT-5: Solid waste LSM Greater (SU) Reduced (LSM) 2 

Impact C-UT Contribution to cumulative impacts related 

to disruption or relocation of utilities 


Biological Resources 

Impact BI-1 Special-status wildlife species LSM Greater (SU) Similar (LSM) 




Table 1-2 


(Continued) 

Proposed 

Project 

Alternative 1 

No Project 

Alternative 

Alternative 2 

Sliplining 

Alternative 

Impact BI-2 Coast live oak woodland, central coast 

riparian scrub habitat, or other sensitive natural 

community 


Impact BI-3 Jurisdictional waters LSM Greater (SU) Similar (LSM) 

Impact BI-4 Local policies or ordinances protecting 

biological resources, including trees 

Impact C-BI Contribution to cumulative impacts on 

biological resources 



Geology and Soils 

Impact GE-1 Soil erosion or the loss of topsoil LSM Greater (SU) Reduced (LSM) 2 

Impact GE-2 Geologic unit that is unstable or that would 

become unstable as a result of the project 

Impact GE-3 Expose people or structures to adverse effects 

involving surface fault rupture, groundshaking, ground 

failure, or landslides 

Impact C-GE Contribution to cumulative impacts related 

to geology and soils 

LS Greater (SU) Greater (LS) 3 



Hydrology and Water Quality 

Impact HY-1 Violate water quality standards or waste 

discharge requirements or degrade water quality 

Impact C-HY Contribution to cumulative impacts on 

hydrology and water quality 



Hazards and Hazardous Materials 

Impact HZ-2 Reasonably foreseeable upset and accident 

conditions involving the release of hazardous materials 

into the environment 

Impact HZ-5 Interfere with emergency response plan or 

emergency evacuation plan 

Impact C-HZ Contribution to cumulative impacts related 

to hazards and hazardous materials 

LSM Similar (LSM) Similar (LSM) 

LS Greater (SU) Similar (LS) 


Source: G&E/GTC Joint Venture, 2011; PPSU project analysis, URS. 

Notes: 

1 

Includes significant impacts of alternatives. 

2 

Although the impact conclusion does not change, the level or intensity of the impact would be reduced under this 

alternative. 

3 

Although the impact conclusion does not change, the level or intensity of the impact would be greater under this 

alternative. 

LS = Less-than-Significant impact, no mitigation required 

LSM = Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation 

SU = Significant and Unavoidable impact for which feasible mitigation is not available 

SUM = Significant and Unavoidable impact, with implementation of feasible Mitigation 




the Draft EIR. Written comments were also received during the scoping period, which began on 

November 9, 2011, and ended on December 9, 2011. A scoping report was prepared that 

summarizes the comments received on the project, including a transcript of oral testimony at the 

November 2011 scoping meeting (see Appendix B). Refer to Table 2-1 in Chapter 2, Introduction 

and Background, for an overview of environmental concerns raised during the scoping period. 

These concerns cover the following topics: construction impacts on adjacent residences and 

schools, including dust and noise; security and safety of neighborhood and schools during 

construction; communication plan to inform neighbors of construction activities; minimization of 

visual effects on neighbors during construction, including commercial uses; traffic circulation/ 

congestion from construction equipment; maintenance of access routes through neighborhood to 

facilities/services during construction; vegetation and tree removal; weed and pest management; 

erosion controls; and utility replacement and impacts to wholesale customers. 

1.8 References 

Caltrans (California Department of Transportation), 2006. Manual of Traffic Controls for 

Construction and Maintenance Work Areas. 

G&E/GTC Joint Venture, 2011. CUW 36702 Peninsula Pipeline Seismic Upgrade Project, Final 

Alternatives Analysis Report. September. 

SF Planning (City and County of San Francisco, San Francisco Planning Department), 2008. Final 

Program Environmental Impact Report for the San Francisco Public Utility Commission’s Water 

System Improvement Program, File No. 2005.0159E, State Clearinghouse No. 2005092026. 

Certified October 30, 2008. 

SFPUC (San Francisco Public Utilities Commission), 2007. Right-of-Way Integrated Vegetation 

Management Policy. February. 

San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC), 2008. SFPUC Resolution 08-200, Water 

System Improvement Program California Environmental Quality Act Findings: Findings of Fact, 

Evaluation of Mitigation Measures and Alternatives, and Statement of Overriding 

Considerations. October 2008. 

SVP (Society of Vertebrate Paleontology), 1995. Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to 

Nonrenewable Paleontologic Resources: Standard Guidelines. Society of Vertebrate Paleontology 

News Bulletin 163:22–27. 

SVP (Society of Vertebrate Paleontology), 1996. Conditions of Receivership for Paleontologic 

Salvage Collections. Society of Vertebrate Paleontology News Bulletin 166:31 32. 

URS (URS Corporation), 2012a. Peninsula Pipelines Seismic Upgrade Project. Historic Context 

and Archaeological Survey Report, Final. April. Confidential Report. 

URS (URS Corporation), 2012b. Peninsula Pipelines Seismic Upgrade Project. Paleontological 

Resources Survey Report, Final. April. 




CHAPTER 2 

 

2.1 Introduction 

The proposed Peninsula Pipelines Seismic Upgrade (PPSU) project involves seismic upgrades to 

San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) regional water facilities at five discrete 

project sites on the San Francisco Peninsula in San Mateo County. The project sites are in the 

Town of Colma, and the cities of South San Francisco, 1 San Bruno, and Millbrae; and a common 

staging area is proposed in South San Francisco. The SFPUC is proposing the PPSU project to 

improve the seismic reliability of transmission pipelines between Harry Tracy Water Treatment 

Plant (HTWTP) and the Capuchino, Baden, and San Pedro Valve Lots, in the event of a major 

earthquake on the San Andreas Fault. Proposed project improvements include seismic upgrades 

to the SFPUC’s San Andreas Pipeline No. 2 (SAPL2), San Andreas Pipeline No. 3 (SAPL3), and 

Sunset Supply Branch Pipeline (SSBPL), which deliver water from the HTWTP to the SFPUC’s 

regional water system. The objectives of the project would be achieved by completing the 

proposed improvements, which are designed to prevent the failure of SAPL2, SAPL3, and SSBPL, 

and maintain their reliability during a major seismic event. 

2.2 Background – Regional Water System and the Water 

System Improvement Program 

2.2.1 SFPUC Regional Water System Overview 

The City and County of San Francisco (CCSF), through the SFPUC, owns and operates a regional 

water system that extends from the Sierra Nevada to San Francisco and serves drinking water to 

2.4 million people in San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Alameda, and Tuolumne counties. 

The regional water system consists of water conveyance, storage, treatment, and distribution 

facilities, and delivers water to retail and wholesale customers. The existing system includes 

more than 280 miles of pipeline, more than 60 miles of tunnels, 11 reservoirs, five pump stations, 

and two water treatment plants. The SFPUC currently delivers an annual average of about 

265 million gallons per day of water to its customers. The water comes from a combination of 

local supplies from streamflow and runoff in the Alameda Creek watershed and the San Mateo 

Creek and Pilarcitos Creek watersheds (referred to together as the Peninsula watershed), which is 

1 A portion of the South San Francisco project site is located in unincorporated San Mateo County. 



2. Introduction and Background 

augmented with imported supplies from the Tuolumne River watershed. Local watersheds 

provide about 15 percent of total supplies, and the Tuolumne River provides the remaining 

85 percent. Figure 2-1 illustrates the general location of the SFPUC regional system, and 

Figure 2-2 shows the location of the water supply watersheds. 

Water from the upper Tuolumne River watershed that is captured in Hetch Hetchy Reservoir can be 

delivered to SFPUC customers without filtration, provided it meets all federal 2 and State 3 “filtration 

avoidance” requirements. These requirements specify that the water provider must meet source water 

quality standards and disinfection criteria, and conduct extensive routine water quality monitoring 

and watershed protection activities. The SFPUC maintains the filtration avoidance status for Hetch 

Hetchy water by proactively operating and maintaining facilities to prevent contamination of water 

supplies, and, when unfavorable changes in water quality do occur, by diverting the quality-impaired 

Hetch Hetchy water out of the regional system to prevent the water from being delivered to 

customers (SFPUC, 2008). SFPUC water supplies from the Alameda and Peninsula watersheds do not 

meet the filtration avoidance criteria, and require filtration before delivery to customers. 

The SFPUC serves about one-third of its water supplies directly to retail customers, primarily in San 

Francisco, and about two-thirds of its water supplies to wholesale customers by contractual 

agreement. The wholesale customers are represented by the Bay Area Water Supply and 

Conservation Agency, which consists of 26 member agencies, as shown on Figure 2-3. 4 Some of these 

wholesale customers have access to other sources of water in addition to the supplies they receive 

from the SFPUC regional water system, while others rely completely on the SFPUC for water supply. 

2.2.2 SFPUC Water System Improvement Program 

On October 30, 2008, the SFPUC adopted the Water System Improvement Program (WSIP) (also 

known as the “Phased WSIP Variant”) and the WSIP goals and objectives (SFPUC Resolution 

08-200 [SFPUC, 2008]). The adopted WSIP will improve the reliability of the regional water 

system with respect to water quality, seismic response, and water delivery based on a planning 

horizon through the year 2030. The WSIP will also improve the regional system with respect to 

water supply to meet water delivery needs in the service area through the year 2018. The 

program area spans seven counties—Tuolumne, Stanislaus, San Joaquin, Alameda, Santa Clara, 

San Mateo, and San Francisco. 

The WSIP includes a water supply strategy, modifications to system operations, and construction 

of a series of facility infrastructure improvement projects. The overall goals of the WSIP are to 

2 

In 1991, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) adopted the Surface Water Treatment Rule, 

which includes water quality provisions for unfiltered water systems. In 1993, the U.S. EPA approved 

Hetch Hetchy water supplies as an unfiltered source that meets all filtration avoidance criteria contained 

in the federal statute. 

3 

In 1998, the state added filtration avoidance provisions to Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations, under 

which the California Department of Public Health currently regulates the Hetch Hetchy water system. 

4 

The Cordilleras Mutual Water Association is an additional wholesale customer receiving water from the 

SFPUC, but it is not a Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency member and is not shown in 

Figure 2-3. It is a small water association serving 18 single-family homes in San Mateo County. 



5/29/12 vsa... T:\SFPUC CS-116 Peninsula Pipelines\DEIR 2012\Fig2-1_sfpuc_reg_water_sys.ai 

SUNSET 

RESERVOIR 

SUNSET 

SUPPLY 

PIPELINE 

SAN 

ANDREAS 

PIPELINE 

SAN PEDRO 

VALVE LOT 

HARRY 

TRACY 

WTP 

CRYSTAL 

SPRINGS/ 

SAN ANDREAS 

PIPELINE 

CRYSTAL 

SPRINGS 

PUMP 

STATION 

UPPER CRYSTAL 

SPRINGS DAM 

Pacific 

Ocean 

San Francisco 

SAN ANDREAS 

RESERVOIR 

PILARCITOS 

RESERVOIR 

STONE DAM 

Pilarcitos 

LOWER 

Creek 

CRYSTAL 

SPRINGS DAM 

Pipeline 

Tunnel 

Millbrae 

CRYSTAL SPRINGS 

RESERVOIR 

PULGAS 

BALANCING 

RESERVOIR 

Water Treatment Plant (WTP) 

Other Facilities 

Segments of the system not shown 

Source: San Francisco Planning Department (2008) 

MERCED MANOR 

RESERVOIR 

UNIVERSITY 

MOUND 

RESERVOIR 


PIPELINE 

BADEN VALVE LOT 

CAPUCHINO VALVE LOT 

San Francisco Bay 


BYPASS TUNNEL 

PULGAS 

PUMP 

STATION 

PULGAS 

TUNNEL 

Redwood 

City 

STANFORD 

TUNNEL 

Palo Alto 

Los Altos 

BAY DIVISION 

PIPELINES 3&4 

Hayward 

Newark 

ALAMEDA EAST 

PORTAL 

SAN ANTONIO 

PUMP STATION 

IRVINGTON 

PORTAL 

Fremont 

ALAMEDA 

SIPHONS 

ALAMEDA WEST 

PORTAL 

BAY DIVISION 

PIPELINES 1&2 

SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER 

DISTRICT INTERTIE 

IRVINGTON 

TUNNEL 

SUNOL 

VALLEY 

WTP 

San Jose 

$ 

Not to Scale 

Milpitas 

JAMES H. TURNER DAM 

OAKDALE PORTAL 

SAN ANTONIO 

RESERVOIR 

COAST RANGE 

TUNNEL 

Alameda 

Creek 

CALAVERAS 

RESERVOIR 

MOCHO 

SHAFT 

CALAVERAS DAM 

THOMAS 

SHAFT 

TESLA 

PORTAL 

FOOTHILL 

TUNNEL 

LAKE LLOYD 

(CHERRY RESERVOIR) 

MOCCASIN 

RESERVOIR 

ROCK RIVER 

LIME FACILITY 

San Joaquin River 

SAN JOAQUIN 

PIPELINES 1, 2 & 3 

TESLA 

DISINFECTION 

FACILITY 

ALAMEDA CREEK 

DIVERSION 

TUNNEL 

HOLM 

POWERHOUSE 

CHERRY 

POWER 

TUNNEL 

PRIEST 

RESERVOIR 

ALAMEDA CREEK DIVERSION DAM 

MOUNTAIN 

TUNNEL 

MOCCASIN 

POWERHOUSE 

LAKE 

ELEANOR 

CANYON POWER TUNNEL 

Tuolumne River 

KIRKWOOD 

POWERHOUSE 

AND EARLY 

INTAKE BYPASS 

HETCH HETCHY 

RESERVOIR 

Yosemite 

National 

Park 

O‘SHAUGHNESSY DAM 

SFPUC REGIONAL WATER SYSTEM 




FIGURE 2-1

Sacraemento 

River 

NEVADA 

CALIFORNIA 

SACRAMENTO 

Hetch Hetchy 

System Drainage 

5/29/12 vsa... T:\SFPUC CS-116 Peninsula Pipelines\DEIR 2012\Fig2-2_sfpuc_watersheds.ai 


SAN 

FRANCISCO 

Pilarcitos 

Reservoir 

Crystal Springs 

Reservoir 

San Andreas 

Reservoir 

VALLEJO 

OAKLAND 

SAN JOSE 

Peninsula Reservoirs 

Drainage 

Source: San Francisco Planning Department (2008) 

Alameda Reservoirs 

Drainage 

San Antonio 

Reservoir 

Calaveras 

Reservoir 

Sacramento- 

San Joaquin Delta 

STOCKTON 

San 

Joaquin River 

MODESTO 

$ 

0 10 20 

Miles 

Tuolumne 

River 

Lake Lloyd 

Lake Eleanor 

Hetch Hetchy 

Reservoir 

YOSEMITE 

NATIONAL 

PARK 

SFPUC WATER SUPPLY WATERSHEDS 




FIGURE 2-2


Daly 

City 

26 

6 

17 

Pacific Ocean 

$ 

Half 

Moon 

Bay 

21 

4c 

2 

14 


Andreas 

Reservoir 

Pilarcitos 

Reservoir 

5 

5* 

9 

SFO 

3 

5* 

11 


4a 


Mateo 

4b 

13 

Crystal 

Springs 

Reservoir 

8 

4b 

San Mateo 

County 

20 

4a 

12 

4a 

12 

24 

19 

18 

7 

Palo 

Alto 

18 

10 

Hayward 

16 

1 

25 


Jose 

23 22 

Alameda 

County 

15 

Santa Clara 

County 

Lawrence 

Livermore 

National 

Laboratory 

San Antonio 

Reservoir 

Calaveras 

Reservoir 

Not to Scale 

5/29/12 vsa... T:\SFPUC CS-116 Peninsula Pipelines\DEIR 2012\Fig2-3_sfpuc_water_service_areas.ai 

Legend 

(Wholesale customers and members of 

Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency) 

1 Alameda County Water District 

2 City of Brisbane 

3 City of Burlingame 

4a CWS – Bear Gulch 

4b CWS – Mid-Peninsula 

4c CWS – South San Francisco 

5 Coastside County Water District 

6 City of Daly City 

7 City of East Palo Alto 

8 Estero Municipal Improvement District 

9 Guadalupe Valley Municipal Improvement District 

10 City of Hayward 

11 Town of Hillsborough 

12 City of Menlo Park 

* Portions of Coastside County Water District not 

served by the SFPUC regional water system. 

NOTE: 

For the purposes of this EIR, the California Water 

Service (CWS) Company is a single wholesale 

customer with three different water service districts. 

Source: BAWSCA (2010) 

13 Mid-Peninsula Water District 

14 City of Millbrae 

15 City of Milpitas 

16 City of Mountain View 

17 North Coast County Water District 

18 City of Palo Alto 

19 Purissima Hills Water District 

20 City of Redwood City 

21 City of San Bruno 

22 City of San Jose (North) 

23 City of Santa Clara 

24 Stanford University 

25 City of Sunnyvale 

26 Westborough Water District 

SFPUC WATER SERVICE AREA 

SAN FRANCSICO AND SFPUC WHOLESALE CUSTOMERS 




FIGURE 2-3


maintain high-quality water; reduce vulnerability to earthquakes; increase delivery reliability and 

improve the ability to maintain the system; meet customer purchase requests in nondrought and 

drought periods; enhance sustainability in all system activities; and achieve a cost-effective, fully 

operational system. To further these program goals, the WSIP also includes objectives that 

address system performance in the areas of water quality, seismic reliability, delivery reliability, 

and water supply. 

The San Francisco Planning Department prepared a Program Environmental Impact Report 

(PEIR) to address the potential environmental impacts of the WSIP. The San Francisco Planning 

Commission certified the WSIP PEIR on October 30, 2008 (SF Planning, 2008; San Francisco 

Planning Commission Motion No. 17734). The SFPUC approved the WSIP and made findings 

pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), including a statement of 

overriding considerations, and adopted a mitigation monitoring and reporting program for the 

WSIP (SFPUC Resolution 08-200). 

The PPSU project was not identified as a WSIP facility improvement project, and was not part of 

the WSIP evaluated in the PEIR. The need for the project was identified only as a result of 

geotechnical investigations in connection with the HTWTP Long Term Improvements project, 

which is a WSIP facility improvement project that was approved and adopted by the SFPUC in 

2010. 

Based on project information provided by the SPFUC (Zhang, 2012a), the San Francisco Planning 

Department determined that the PPSU project should proceed with environmental review under 

a separate project Environmental Impact Report, independent of the PEIR, for the following 

reasons: 

1. The purpose of the project is reduce the risk of pipeline failure at locations along the SAPL2, 

SAPL3, and SSBPL that are susceptible to liquefaction, ground shaking, and landslides 

during seismic events; the project would serve this function and is necessary irrespective of 

any other WSIP project. 

2. The project proposes replacement and stabilization of segments of the existing pipelines, and 

would not increase the normal operating capacity of the regional water system. 

3. The project would not change the manner in which water is dispersed, increase the storage 

capacity of the regional water system, or increase or alter the nature of any treatment 

capacity of the system. 

4. Any potential cumulative impacts associated with the project are addressed in this 

Environmental Impact Report (EIR). 

5. Proceeding with the PPSU project does not commit the City to any other project, including 

WSIP facility improvement projects. 

For these reasons, the PPSU project is independent of the WSIP PEIR, and is undergoing 

separate environmental review. However, this EIR relies on the WSIP PEIR as a key source of 

information about the SFPUC facilities and operations. In addition, to the extent that they 

overlap in timing and geography with the proposed project, the WSIP facility improvement 




projects are included in this EIR’s cumulative impact analysis (see Section 5.1.3, Cumulative 

Impacts). 

2.2.3 Regional Water System Facilities 

The regional water system begins with Hetch Hetchy Reservoir and O’Shaughnessy Dam, which 

are located in Yosemite National Park on the main stem of the Tuolumne River in the Sierra 

Nevada. From Hetch Hetchy Reservoir, raw surface water is transported westward within a 

series of tunnels (Canyon Power, Mountain, and Foothill tunnels) to the Oakdale Portal. 

Approximately 3 miles upstream from the Oakdale Portal is the Rock River Lime Facility, where 

chemicals are added to water in the Foothill Tunnel for corrosion control. From the Oakdale 

Portal, water is conveyed within the San Joaquin Pipelines to the Tesla Disinfection Facility at the 

Tesla Portal, where chlorine is applied in the form of sodium hypochlorite for primary 

disinfection. At the Tesla Portal, the chlorinated Hetch Hetchy water enters the 25-mile-long 

Coast Range Tunnel and is conveyed west to the Alameda East Portal in the Sunol Valley, which 

connects the Coast Range Tunnel to the Alameda Siphons. 

The Alameda Siphons are three parallel pipelines that extend approximately 3,000 feet from the 

Alameda East Portal across the Sunol Valley and beneath Alameda Creek to the Alameda West 

Portal. Under normal operating conditions, local water supplies from the Alameda watershed 

that have been treated at the Sunol Valley Water Treatment Plant enter the regional water system 

and are blended with Hetch Hetchy supplies in Alameda Siphons Nos. 1 and 2. At the Sunol 

Valley Chloramination Facility and the fluoride facility located south of the Alameda Siphons, 

chloramine is added to the blended water for secondary disinfection, fluoride is added to prevent 

tooth decay, and the pH of the blended water is adjusted for corrosion control. The blended 

water exits the Sunol Valley at the Alameda West Portal, where it enters the Irvington Tunnel 

and is conveyed westward to Bay Area customers. 

The Peninsula water system originates with the impounding of local drainage at Crystal Springs 

Reservoir, where local water sources from within the Peninsula watershed blend with water from 

the Hetch Hetchy and Alameda Watersheds. Crystal Springs Reservoir is composed of two 

reservoirs, Upper and Lower Crystal Springs Reservoirs, divided by a dam with two large 

culverts enabling unimpeded flow between the reservoirs. From Crystal Springs Reservoir, the 

Crystal Springs Pump Station pumps stored water through the Crystal Springs/San Andreas 

Pipeline to the San Andreas Reservoir, which serves as the terminus of the Peninsula water 

system. The San Andreas Reservoir, which also receives inflow from the Pilarcitos Reservoir and 

San Mateo Creek drainage, is the source of raw water inflow to the HTWTP. The HTWTP 

provides the treatment process necessary (i.e., filtration, fluoridation, and disinfection) to convert 

raw water from the San Andreas Reservoir to drinking water before being delivered to customers 

in northern San Mateo County and San Francisco via the SAPL2, and SAPL3 or the SSBPL. 

2.3 Purpose of this Environmental Impact Report 

Under the San Francisco Administrative Code, Chapter 31, the San Francisco Planning 

Department Environmental Planning Division (Environmental Planning) (formerly the Major 

Environmental Analysis Division) is the lead agency responsible for implementing CEQA 




requirements for all projects sponsored by the CCSF or conducted in San Francisco, including 

those sponsored by the SFPUC. Environmental Planning determined that preparation of this EIR 

for the PPSU project, for which the SFPUC is the project sponsor, is required to comply with 

CEQA. CEQA requires the preparation of an EIR when a proposed project could significantly 

affect the physical environment. 

Environmental Planning has prepared this EIR to provide the public and responsible and trustee 

agencies reviewing the PPSU project with information about the potential effects of the project on 

the environment. This EIR describes the potential environmental impacts resulting from 

implementation of the PPSU project, identifies mitigation measures for reducing impacts to a 

less-than-significant level where feasible, and evaluates alternatives to the project. 

2.4 Public Outreach 

2.4.1 Notice of Preparation 

In accordance with Sections 15063 and 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines, the San Francisco Planning 

Department, as lead agency, sent a Notice of Preparation (NOP) to responsible and trustee agencies, 

as well as to interested entities and individuals, to begin the formal CEQA scoping process. These 

included local, State, and federal agencies; regional and local interest groups; and property owners 

within 300 feet of the project area (see Appendix A). The scoping period began on November 9, 

2011, and ended on December 9, 2011. The NOP included a preliminary discussion of the potential 

environmental impacts of the project. The NOP was placed in the Examiner (San Francisco, CA) 

and in the San Mateo Times on November 9, 2011, and was posted to the San Francisco Planning 

Department website along with other information related to the proposed project. 

2.4.2 Public Scoping Meeting 

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15083, the San Francisco Planning Department held a public 

scoping meeting at 6:30 p.m. on November 30, 2011, at the San Bruno Chinese Church, 250 Courtland 

Avenue, San Bruno, California. Notices were placed in local newspapers informing the general public 

of the scoping meeting, the purpose of which was to present the project to the public and to receive 

public input regarding the proposed scope of the EIR analysis. Attendees were provided with an 

opportunity to make comments or express concerns on potential effects of the project. 

2.4.3 Public and Agency Comments on Notice of Preparation 

The scoping process provided an opportunity for governmental agencies and the public to 

provide comments on the issues and scope of the EIR. The Planning Department prepared a 

scoping report to summarize the public scoping process and the comments received in response 

to the NOP. Appendix B includes the comments received during the public scoping period, a 

transcript of the scoping meeting, and the scoping report. Approximately a dozen members of the 

public attended, and four of those present provided comment. Additional comments were 

received by San Francisco Planning Department staff via mail and email correspondence. The 

major environmental concerns raised during the scoping period are summarized in Table 2-1. 




Table 2-1 

Summary of Scoping Comments 


General 

The EIR should describe the history of right-of-way and easement 

boundaries and ownership issues, especially in the area of the Fifth 

Avenue right-of-way in Colma. 

Provide a detailed site plan showing planned improvements in the 

vicinity of the Fifth Avenue right-of-way. 

Communications 

Describe neighborhood outreach plans that will be implemented during 


Specify a contact person whom neighbors can call should concerns arise. 

Keep affected neighbors informed of exact construction start and end 

dates. 

Notify neighbors in advance of any scheduled utility interruptions, or if 

any evening or weekend work is planned. 

Safety and Security 

Address the potential for project activities to disrupt gas pipelines in the 

neighborhoods and result in explosions. 

Identify site security measures to be taken in and near construction 

areas, including fencing and signage. 

Location Where 

Addressed in the EIR 

Chapter 3, Project 

Description (planned 

improvements); 

history regarding 

Fifth Avenue rightof-way 

not an 

environmental issue 

Section 5.2, Land Use 

and Land Use 

Planning 

Section 5.12, Utilities 

and Service Systems/ 

Section 5.2, Land Use 

and Land Use 


Aesthetics 

Consider the location of staging areas and spoils storage areas to 

minimize the visual impacts to the Serramonte Boulevard commercial 

uses in Colma. 

Consider locating staging and material/storage areas to minimize the 

visual impacts on adjacent residential areas. 

Describe post-construction landscaping and grounds maintenance plans; 

consider improving on existing conditions in Colma commercial 

corridor. 

Identify plans to restore directly affected residential parcels after project 

completion to be visually compatible with the surrounding 

neighborhood. 

Keep portable restrooms within the staging areas. 

Remove construction debris from work areas regularly. 

Chapter 3, Project 

Description/ 

Section 5.3, 

Aesthetics 




Table 2-1 

Summary of Scoping Comments (Continued) 


Noise and Vibration 

Identify noise impacts on adjacent neighboring uses. 

Identify construction equipment noise and vibration impacts on nearby 

homes. 

Address project vibration impacts on nearby home foundations. 

Land Use Conflicts 

Address project construction interference with activities at the San 

Bruno Chinese Church. 

Address construction impacts on residents of Shelter Creek 

Condominiums. 

Consider privacy concerns of residents in immediate project vicinity. 

Consider quality-of-life impacts on adjacent residents. 

Transportation, Traffic, and Parking 

Describe impacts of construction on local roads. 

Consider project traffic impacts on sidewalks, curbs, and roads that 

homeowners are responsible for maintaining. 

Consider project impacts on local parking and traffic. 

Describe project disruption to ingress/egress from Shelter Creek 

Condominiums and parking structure. 

Consider impacts to home access and street parking in residential areas. 

Consider the traffic impacts of construction access routes, as well as 

routes for ongoing cleaning, maintenance, and repair activities. 

Consider the need for additional traffic mitigation measures to reduce 

conflicts during the busy holiday shopping period in the adjacent Colma 

commercial uses. 

Identify how project construction may interfere with Meadows Elementary 

School traffic—especially parents dropping off or picking up kids. 


Provide a detailed description of tree removal plans and postconstruction 

vegetation management. 

Describe post-construction vegetation management plans in the Spur Area. 

Address pest control issues associated with vegetation removal and 

excavation, and identify an environmentally sensitive pest control program. 

Discuss the need to handle noxious weeds and poison oak carefully on 

the Spur property. 

Identify encroachment impacts on local wildlife habitat and suggest 

mitigation measures to minimize such impacts. 

Implement an active neighborhood pest control program after 

vegetation removal and ground disturbance. 



Section 5.7, Noise 

Section 5.2, Land 

Use and Land Use 


Section 5.6, 

Transportation and 

Circulation 

Section 5.14, 





Table 2-1 

Summary of Scoping Comments (Continued) 



Identify stormwater impacts associated with project construction. 

Air Quality 

Identify dust impacts and proposed control measures related to the 

project. 

Erosion Control 

Address the potential for vegetation removal and grading/trenching 

activities to exacerbate landslide risks in hilly areas. 

Consider the need for additional erosion control measures during winter 

construction periods. 

Identify post-construction compacting and drainage plans for sloped 

areas. 

Utilities and Services 

Consider project impacts on other utilities that may be located in the 

vicinity of the right-of-way. 

Describe construction impacts on all wholesale customer turnouts. 

Identify any other utility repair or replacement work in the vicinity to be 

done concurrently with the PPSU work. 

Other 

Address project description discrepancies between the NOP, the PPSU 

Final Alternatives Analysis Report, and the Conceptual Engineering 

Report. 

The Alternatives Analysis should quantify the degree to which seismic 

reliability goals can be met, as well as any potential changes in operating 

performance. 

Consider compensation and/or relocation for homeowners whose daily 

lives will be disrupted by the project. 

Identify property value impacts associated with construction. 

Indemnify property owners for actions related to the project. 

Source: URS and Mara Feeney & Associates (Appendix B). 

Notes: 

EIR = Environmental Impact Report 

NOP = Notice of Preparation 

PPSU = Peninsula Pipelines Seismic Upgrade 

SFPUC = San Francisco Public Utilities Commission 



Section 5.16, 

Hydrology and 

Water Quality 

Section 5.8, Air 

Quality 

Section 5.15, 

Geology and Soils/ 

Section 5.16, 

Hydrology and 

Water Quality 

Section 5.12, Utilities 

and Service Systems 

Not environmental 

issues; response to 

commenter 

separately provided 

by SFPUC 




2.4.4 Other Community Outreach 

In addition to the public meeting and formal public input process described above, members of 

the SFPUC project team have met with representatives from local jurisdictions, including the 

Town of Colma and the cities of San Bruno and Millbrae. Additional meetings have occurred 

with the San Bruno Fire Marshall and private property owners to discuss the project and learn 

more about the concerns of community members, including representatives of groups that use 

the Peninsula High School facilities; representatives of the San Bruno Chinese Church; and 

representatives of the Shelter Creek Condominiums (Zhang, 2012b). Information gained at 

these meetings has been incorporated into the setting and impact analysis of this EIR. 

2.5 Project Changes Subsequent to Publication of 

Notice of Preparation 

This section describes the various modifications made to the PPSU project subsequent to 

publication of the NOP in 2011. The project evolved as more detailed information was developed 

during project design. The lengths of some of the pipeline segments to be replaced were slightly 

modified, construction methods have been further defined, and the schedule has been reduced by 

approximately 4 months. A common staging area is now proposed in South San Francisco at the 

northern portion of the SFPUC’s Baden Value Lot, west of El Camino Real and north of West 

Orange Avenue. The footprint of several staging areas was modified in response to information 

obtained regarding potential impacts to adjacent land uses. Nighttime construction may be 

required at the San Bruno North site, and the project site was extended into a portion of the righthand 

eastbound lane of San Bruno Avenue West, which may require the closure of the lane for 

up to 2 weeks during construction. Nighttime activities would also include limited 24-hour 

pumping for dewatering of the pipelines at a few locations. Chapter 3, Project Description, of this 

EIR provides a detailed description of the project, inclusive of these revisions. 

2.6 Organization of the Draft Environmental Impact 

Report 

This EIR is organized into eight chapters, as discussed below: 

Chapter 1 – Executive Summary. This chapter presents a summary of the proposed project, 

identifies potentially significant environmental impacts and mitigation measures, and describes 

the alternatives considered in this EIR. It also addresses areas of controversy and issues to be 

resolved. 

Chapter 2 – Introduction and Background. This chapter provides project background 

information and describes the purpose and organization of the EIR, as well as the environmental 

review process. 




Chapter 3 – Project Description. This chapter presents the proposed project description 

(including project objectives), a summary of project components, and information about project 

construction. The chapter also lists required permits and approvals. 

Chapter 4 – Plans and Policies. This chapter describes applicable land use plans and policies and 

their relevance to the project, and then discusses the project’s consistency with those plans. 

Chapter 5 – Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures. This chapter is 

subdivided into sections for each environmental resource topic. Each section describes the 

environmental and regulatory setting, the criteria used to determine impact significance, and the 

approach to the analysis for that resource topic. It then presents an analysis of potential 

environmental impacts and the project-specific mitigation measures that have been developed to 

address significant and potentially significant impacts. Each section also includes an evaluation 

of cumulative impacts with respect to that resource topic. 

Chapter 6 – Other CEQA Issues. This chapter discusses growth-inducing effects, summarizes the 

cumulative impacts, identifies the significant environmental effects that cannot be avoided if the 

proposed project is implemented, and describes the significant irreversible impacts. 

Chapter 7 – Alternatives. This chapter describes the alternatives to the proposed project and 

compares their impacts to those of the proposed project. This chapter also summarizes the 

alternatives that were considered but screened from further analysis. 

Chapter 8 – EIR Authors and Consultants. This chapter lists the authors of this EIR. 

Appendices 


SF Planning (City and County of San Francisco, San Francisco Planning Department), 2008. Final 

Program Environmental Impact Report for the San Francisco Public Utility Commission’s Water 

System Improvement Program, File No. 2005.0159E, State Clearinghouse No. 2005092026. 

Certified October 30, 2008. 

SFPUC (San Francisco Public Utilities Commission), 2008. SFPUC Resolution 08-200, Water 

System Improvement Program California Environmental Quality Act Findings: Findings of Fact, 

Evaluation of Mitigation Measures and Alternatives, and Statement of Overriding 

Considerations. October. 

Zhang, YinLan, 2012a. SFPUC Peninsula Pipeline Seismic Upgrade Project, Memo Documenting 

Project Independent Utility to Steven Smith. July 31. 

Zhang, YinLan, 2012b. Personal communication between YinLan Zhang, SFPUC Environmental 

Project Manager, and Hannah Young, URS. December 5. 




CHAPTER 3 

 

This chapter describes the proposed Peninsula Pipelines Seismic Upgrade (PPSU) project (the 

“project”). Topics addressed include the proposed project’s location; project background; goals 

and objectives; existing facilities; proposed construction and operation activities; the San 

Francisco Public Utilities Commission’s (SFPUC) standard construction measures that would be 

implemented as part of the proposed project; the SFPUC’s proposed greenhouse gas reduction 

actions; proposed project construction activities; proposed operations and maintenance; and 

required permits for project implementation. 

3.1 Project Location 

The proposed project would entail seismic upgrades to the SFPUC’s San Andreas Pipeline No. 2 

(SAPL2), San Andreas Pipeline No. 3 (SAPL3), and Sunset Supply Branch Pipeline (SSBPL), 

potable water transmission pipelines that deliver water from the Harry Tracy Water Treatment 

Plant (HTWTP) to the SFPUC’s regional water system. The proposed project would be located on 

the San Francisco Peninsula at five sites in the Town of Colma, and the cities of South San 

Francisco, San Bruno, and Millbrae in San Mateo County, as shown on Figure 3-1. 

Within this Environmental Impact Report (EIR), the sites comprising the project 1 are referred to 

as follows: 

Colma site – SAPL2 replacement in the Town of Colma; 

South San Francisco site – SAPL2 replacement in the City of South San Francisco; 2 

San Bruno North site – SAPL2 pipe stabilization in the City of San Bruno, near the San Bruno 

Avenue West off-ramps from Interstate 280 (I-280); 

San Bruno South site – SAPL2 and SAPL3 replacement in the City of San Bruno, at Whitman 

Way; and 

Millbrae site – SSBPL replacement in the City of Millbrae. 

A common staging area is proposed in the City of South San Francisco at the northern portion of 

the SFPUC’s Baden Value Lot near the South San Francisco site. 

1 Each site includes the construction zone, staging and spoils areas, and new or existing access routes requiring 

upgrades, as applicable. 

2 A portion of the project site is also located in unincorporated San Mateo County. 



DR 

BAYSHORE 

D A L Y C I T Y 

C O L M A 

SERRAMONTE BLVD 

CALLAN BLVD 

JUNIPERO 

HICKEY B LVD 

SAPL2 & SAPL3 

D A 

SERRA BLVD 

L Y 

C I T Y 

COLMA SITE 

JUNIPERO SERRA BLVD 

§¨¦280 

COLMA 

C O L M A 

WESTBOROUGH 

SAN ANDREAS PIPELINE NO.2/SAPL2 & 

SAN ANDREAS PIPELINE NO.3/SAPL3 

ALTA 

ARROYO 

MESA DR 

DR 

HILLSIDE BLVD 

MISSION RD 

SUNSET SUPPLY PIPELINE 

BLVD 

HOLLY AVE 

SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 

California Golf Club 

of San Francisco 

SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO SITE 

COMMON STAGING AREA 

EL CAMINO REAL 

ORANGE A VE 

San Bruno 

Mountain State 

& County Park 

PARK 

S SPRUCE 

Sign 

Hill Park 

WAY 

MILLER AVE 

GRAND AVE 

AVE 

HILLSIDE 

BLVD 

SLINDEN AVE 

LINDEN AVE 

£¤ 101 

P a c 

S AIRPORT BLVD 

i f i c 

AIRPORTBLVD 

O c e a n 

UTAH AVE 

UV1 

US HWY101 

E GRAND AVE 

LITTLEFIELD AVE 

BLVD 

§¨¦ 80 

§¨¦ 880 


Francisco 

Alameda 

Daly 

City 

Colma 

South 

§¨¦ San Francisco 

280 UV101 

Pacifica Oyster Point 

Park 

San Millbrae 

Bruno 

UV82 

Burlingame 

B R I S B A N E 

S a n 

S O U T H S A N F R A N C I S C O 

B a y 

F r a n c 

i s c o 

UV 

S a n F r a n c i s c o 

B a y 


AV 


S A N 

SHARP PARK 

B R U N O 

RD 

S A N B R U N O 

OAKMONT DR 

FLEETWOOD DR 

ROLLINGWOOD 

DR 

ALO N 

DR 

CRESTW OOD 

Golden Gate 

National 

Cemetery 

SNEATH LN 

I380 

SAN 

BRUNO 

§¨¦380 

SAN MATEO AVE 

HUNTINGTON AVE 

SHAW RD 

7TH AVE 


S A N F R A N C I S C O I N T E R N A T I O N A L A I R P O R T 

SAN BRUNO AVE 

ACCESS RD 8 

N ACCESS RD 

P A C I F I C A 

Sharp 

Park 

SNEATH LN 

EARL 

AVE 

SAN BRUNO NORTH SITE 

GLENVIEW DR 

OLD BAYSHORE HWY 

STATE HWY 35 

vsa/ed U:\GIS\SFPUC_Peninsula_Pipeline\Projects\EIR\ERO_DEIR\Fig3_1_project_vicinity.mxd 2/12/2013 12:17:00 PM 

PACIFICA 

Golden Gate 

National 

Recreation Area 

^_ 

Project Site 

Source: SFPUC 2009/2011 

P A C I F I C A 

Access Route to Project Site 


SAN BRUNO 

CRESTMOORDR 

S a n A n d r 

L a k e 

AVE W 

Buckeye 

Park 

SUNSET SUPPLY BRANCH PIPELINE/SSBPL 

SFPUC Water Transmission Line 

Harry Tracy Water Treatment Plant 

City Limits 

e a s 

UNINCORPORATED 

^_ 

$ 

0 0.5 1 

Mile 

MADISON AVE 

PIEDMONT AVE 

SAN BRUNO SOUTH SITE 

City 

Park 

CUNNINGHAM 

M I L L B R A E 

JENEVEIN AVE 

Junipero Serra 

County Park 

LARKSPUR DR 



MILLBRAE SITE 

Green 

Hills 

Country Club 

Lions 

Park 

MILLWOOD DR 

HILLCREST BLVD 

SAN ANTONIO AVE 

LUDEMAN LN 

RICHMOND DR 

MILLBRAE 

MURCHISON 

MAGNOLIA AVE 

DR 

LOYOLA DR 

SAN FRANCISCO 

INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 

S 

US HWY 101 

POPLAR AVE 

ASHTON AVE 

MILLBRAE AVE 

QUESADA WAY 

TROUSDALE 


DR 

EMILLBRAE AVE 

STATE 

HWY 82 

R A Y DR 

ROLLINS RD 

CALIFORNIA DR 

PROJECT VICINITY 




FIGURE 3-1

3. Project Description 

The locations of the five sites that comprise the project and the common staging area are 

described below. 

3.1.1 Colma Site 

The proposed project activity in the Town of Colma consists of the replacement of a segment of 

pipeline along the SAPL2. The Colma site would be located in a commercial area between I-280 

and El Camino Real. As shown on Figure 3-2, the site would be predominantly located within the 

SFPUC right-of-way (ROW), which is unpaved vacant land that extends roughly north-south, just 

east of the Serra Shopping Center, south of Serramonte Boulevard. A portion of the site proposed 

to be used for construction staging and spoils storage would be located within the Kohl’s 

Department Store parking lot, immediately east of the ROW. This area at the rear of the store is 

used for merchandise deliveries and trash collection, but not for customer parking (Fletcher, 

2012). The staging area would be designed so as not to impede access to and circulation along the 

rear of the store. Commercial uses in the shopping center include car dealerships, department 

stores, auto repair shops, a car rental agency, and a plumbing supply store. Several cemeteries are 

located in the area, including Cypress Lawn Cemetery, immediately south of the site. An 

unnamed creek runs through an underground culvert that crosses the site. The site is accessible 

from I-280 via the Serramonte Boulevard and Hickey Boulevard exits. 

3.1.2 South San Francisco Site 

The proposed project activity in the City of South San Francisco consists of the replacement of a 

segment of pipeline along SAPL2. A portion of the project site is also located in unincorporated 

San Mateo County. The South San Francisco site would be located in a mixed residential/ 

commercial area west of Camaritas Avenue and El Camino Real, and is accessible from I-280 via 

the Westborough Boulevard exit. As depicted on Figure 3-3, the site would be predominantly 

located in the SFPUC ROW that extends between Arroyo Drive and West Orange Avenue. The 

ROW extends under Westborough Boulevard, adjacent to the California Golf Club of San 

Francisco and a landscaped area along West Orange Avenue. A grove of willows is established 

on top of the ROW, north of Westborough Boulevard. A portion of the site proposed to be used 

for construction staging and spoils storage would be located within the Pacific Supermarket 

parking lot north of Camaritas Avenue. Twelve Mile Creek previously extended through the area 

and now runs through a culvert underneath Westborough Boulevard. 

3.1.3 San Bruno North Site 

The northernmost of the two proposed project activities in the City of San Bruno consists of the 

stabilization of a segment of pipeline along SAPL2. As shown on Figure 3-4, the San Bruno North 

site would be adjacent to a residential neighborhood and the I-280 off ramp to San Bruno Avenue 

West, and across San Bruno Avenue West from the Bayhill Shopping Center. The site is accessible 

from I-280 via the Sneath Lane/San Bruno Avenue West exit. The proposed project would be 

located within the SFPUC ROW that extends between San Bruno Avenue West and the I-280 

north off ramp. The ROW extends over California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) 



TO I-280 FREEWAY 


Customer service 

connection to be replaced 

0.13 

acre 

0.11 

acre 

Serra Shopping 

Center 

700 ft 

Kohl's 

Department Store 

Underground Creek 

Culvert 



Enterprise Rent A Car 

COLLINS AVE 

95 ft 

vsa/ed U:\GIS\SFPUC_Peninsula_Pipeline\Projects\EIR\ADEIR2\Fig3_2_project_description_colma.mxd 10/9/2012 5:32:03 PM 

Source: SFPUC 2011 

Cypress Lawn Memorial 

Cemetery 

Project Components 


Construction Zone 

Staging and Spoils Area 

Access Route 



to be Replaced 

SFPUC Parcels - 

Right-of-Way 

$ 

0 100 200 

Feet 

0.25 

acre 

0.28 

acre 


COLMA SITE 




FIGURE 3-2

750 ft 



ARROYO 

DR 

WESTBOROUGH BLVD 


SITE 

WEST ORAN GE AVE 

ARROYO DR 

ALTA LOMA DR 




OVERVIEW 


California 

Golf Club of 


CAMARITAS AVE 


Culvert 

0.05 

acre 



vsa/ed U:\GIS\SFPUC_Peninsula_Pipeline\Projects\EIR\ADEIR2\Fig3_3_project_description_SSF.mxd 10/4/2012 4:21:48 PM 





Boring Pit 

Access Route 

WEST ORANGE AVE 

$ 

95 ft 

SFPUC Water Transmisson Line 




Right-of-Way 

0 75 150 

Feet 

KNOLL CIR 

FAIRWAY DR 

0.32 

acre 


Westborough 

Royale Assisted 

Living 

Pacific 

Supermarket 



0 100 200 

Feet 





FIGURE 3-3



Bayhill Shopping Center 


130 ft 

SAN BRUNO AVE WEST 

0.14 

acre 

CEDARWOOD CT 

FROM I-280 FREEWAY 

CEDAR AVE 

320 ft 

§¨¦ 280 

vsa/ed U:\GIS\SFPUC_Peninsula_Pipeline\Projects\EIR\ERO_DEIR\Fig3_4_project_description_SanBruno_North.mxd 2/12/2013 12:20:22 PM 

LIVINGSTON TERRACE DR 

CRESTMOOR DR 




Access Portal 

Access Route 


SHELTER CREEK LN 


SFPUC Parcels - Right-of-Way 

50 ft 


PEPPER DR 

150 

Feet 

0 75 

FIGURE 3-4 


$ 




0 75 150 

Feet


property. The project site would extend into a portion of the right-hand eastbound lane of San 

Bruno Avenue West, requiring the closure of the lane for up to 2 weeks during construction. A 

portion of SAPL2 that would be stabilized extends under the rear yard of 1840 Cedarwood Court. 

3.1.4 San Bruno South Site 

The southernmost project activity in the City of San Bruno consists of pipeline replacements 

along both SAPL2 and SAPL3. As shown on Figure 3-5, the proposed San Bruno South site is 

located in a residential neighborhood west of I-280, and is accessible from I-280 via the Sneath 

Avenue/San Bruno Avenue West and Cunningham Way exits. This site would be predominantly 

located within the SFPUC ROW, which is generally unpaved open land, although a portion of the 

site extends under Whitman Way and the Shelter Creek Condominium parking lot. 

Construction staging and spoils storage areas are proposed along the ROW south of the 

construction zone, near the ROW within the Peninsula High School parking lot, and in the San 

Bruno Chinese Church parking lot. The proposed staging area for the San Bruno South site at the 

northern parking lot of the San Bruno Chinese Church would be used during the week for project 

staging, but would be available for church parking during the weekend so that adequate parking 

would be maintained during the most attended church activities. 

3.1.5 Millbrae Site 

The proposed project activity in the City of Millbrae consists of a pipeline replacement along the 

SSBPL. As shown on Figure 3-6, the Millbrae site generally extends east from the intersection of 

Banbury Lane and Ridgewood Drive, through two residential side yards, and through a portion 

of the Green Hills Country Club golf course. The proposed Millbrae site is accessible from I-280 

via the Larkspur Drive and Hillcrest Boulevard exits. The HTWTP is located approximately 

0.4 mile west of this site. The Millbrae site extends through a residential neighborhood, City of 

Millbrae open space area, and a golf course. The site is located predominantly within the SFPUC 

ROW and is generally unpaved land, with residential encroachments and a dense grove of 

primarily eucalyptus and oak trees established on top of a portion of the ROW. Proposed access 

routes requiring upgrades and a portion of the construction staging and spoils storage areas are 

proposed to be located on City of Millbrae and Green Hills Country Club property. 

3.1.6 Common Staging Area 

The common staging area is the approximately 0.32-acre northern portion of the SFPUC’s Baden 

Valve Lot, located just west of El Camino Real in the City of South San Francisco (see Figure 3-3). 

The Baden Valve Lot is an approximately 2-acre, triangularly shaped site within the SFPUC ROW 

at the corner of El Camino Real and West Orange Avenue. The common staging area is accessible 

from I-280 via the Westborough Boulevard exit, continuing on Westborough Boulevard to El 

Camino Real, then to West Orange Avenue. Existing ground cover consists of gravel interspersed 

with vegetation and exposed soils. A chain-link fence borders the site (SF Planning, 2008b). 

Surrounding land uses are both residential and nonresidential, including commercial and water 



Shelter Creek 

Condominiums 

4B 

4D 

4C 


Parking 

Lot C 

Garage 4 

WHITMAN WAY 

4A 

Parking 

Lot B 

112 ft 

Shelter Creek 

Condominiums 

Garage 3 


§¨¦ 280 

HAWTHORNE AVE 

JENEVEIN AVE 

0.09 

acre 

TO I-280 FR EEWAY 

CUNNINGHAM WAY 

1080 ft 

ROSEWOOD DR 

GLENBROOK LN 

COURTLAND DR 

60 ft 

0.18 

acre 

TO I-2 80 FREEWAY 

Church 

Parking Lot 

vsa/ed U:\GIS\SFPUC_Peninsula_Pipeline\Projects\EIR\ADEIR2\Fig3_5_project_description_SanBrunoSouth.mxd 10/11/2012 11:06:23 AM 


Source:SFPUC 2011 

Peninsula High School 

Athletic Fields 

Basketball Courts/ 

Parking Lot 



Access Route 

1.08 

acres 

0.96 

acre 


Parking Lot 





Right-of-Way 

0 100 200 

Feet 

$ 

FIGURE 


Chinese Church 



FROM 

I-280 FREEWAY 





3-5


County Park 

LOMITA AVE 

TERRACE DR 

SANTA BARBARA AVE 

BAYVIEW AVE 

FAIRVIEW PL 

ROBIN LN 

City of Millbrae 

Open Space Area 

SANTA MARGARITA AVE 

RIDGEWOOD DR 

BROOKSIDE LN 

Glen Oaks/ 

Millbrae 

Montessori School 

GLENWOOD DR 

FERNWOOD DR 

OAKWOOD DR 

ELMWOOD DR 

1.1 

acres 

CAPUCHINO DR 

TO US 101 FREEWAY 

HACIENDA WAY 

BERTOCCHI LN 

vsa/ed U:\GIS\SFPUC_Peninsula_Pipeline\Projects\EIR\SC_DEIR\Fig3_6_project_description_Millbrae.mxd 1/8/2013 5:20:10 PM 


PINEHURST CT 


Meadows 

Elementary 

School 

Construction Zone* 


Access Route 

Requiring Upgrade 

Source: NAIP Imagery Summer 2010; SFPUC 2011 

HELEN DR 

MOSSWOOD LN 

BANBURY LN 

Meadows 

Park 

Access Route 

LARKSPUR DR 


SFPUC Water Transmission 

Line to be Replaced 


Right-of-Way 

* SFPUC right-of-way from Ridgewood Drive (shown as construction 

zone) would also serve as an access route to project site. 

150 ft 


$ 

0 200 400 

Feet 

140 ft 

610 ft 

280 ft 

0.31 

acre 

47 ft 

0.62 

acre 

Green Hills 

Country Club 

50 ft 

MILLBRAE SITE 




FIGURE 3-6


facilities. Commercial uses are located along El Camino Real to the east, a funeral home is located 

to the north, and water facilities are located south of the staging area on the Baden Valve Lot. 

Single-family residences are located immediately west of the common staging area. 

3.2 Project Background 

The City and County of San Francisco, through the SFPUC, owns and operates a water 

conveyance, treatment, and distribution system that extends from the Sierra Nevada mountain 

range to the San Francisco Bay Area, as shown on Figure 2-1. SFPUC’s regional water system 

serves approximately 2.4 million people in San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Alameda, and 

Tuolumne counties. The basic network of major facilities in the Regional Water System was built 

from the late 1880s through the 1930s. Expansion and improvements of the major facilities 

continued through the 1970s. The SFPUC has identified aging facilities within the system that are 

in need of major repair, rehabilitation, upgrade, and/or replacement. 

In October 2008, the SFPUC adopted a systemwide program, the Water System Improvement 

Program (WSIP) (SF Planning, 2008a). The WSIP is a comprehensive program designed to 

improve the Regional Water System with respect to water quality, seismic response, and water 

delivery, based on a planning horizon through the year 2030; and to improve the water system 

with respect to water supply to meet water delivery needs in the SFPUC service area through the 

year 2018. To address the potential environmental impacts of the WSIP, the San Francisco 

Planning Department prepared a Program EIR (PEIR), which was certified by the San Francisco 

Planning Commission in 2008 (PEIR State Clearinghouse No. 2005092026). The WSIP PEIR 

evaluated the environmental impacts of the water supply strategy and system operations at a 

project level of detail, and evaluated the environmental impacts of certain WSIP facility 

improvement projects at a program level of detail. 

The PPSU project was not included in the WSIP PEIR as a facility improvement project because 

the need for the project was not identified when the WSIP was originally conceived. The SFPUC 

identified the need for the project after certification of the WSIP PEIR, as a result of geotechnical 

investigations in connection with the HTWTP Long-Term Improvements Project, 3 which is a 

WSIP facility improvement project that was approved and adopted by the SFPUC in 2010. 

During these investigations, the SFPUC determined that fault strands within the plant’s site could 

cause significant failure in existing facilities in the event of a major San Andreas earthquake 

(G&E/GTC Joint Venture, 2011). The fault strands were determined to be part of the Serra Fault 

system, a secondary fault located along the peninsula in San Mateo County. As a result, additional 

geotechnical studies were pursued to determine the ability of the Peninsula water transmission 

system to achieve the adopted WSIP Level of Service (LOS) goal related to seismic reliability. The 

LOS goal requires that within 24 hours of a major earthquake on the San Andreas Fault, the 

HTWTP must be capable of delivering up to 140 million gallons per day of potable drinking water 

to customers within the Regional Water System and in the City and County of San Francisco. 

3 The HTWTP Long-Term Improvements Project proposed improvements to the plant’s treatment process to meet water 

quality and delivery reliability goals, seismic reliability improvements, and other improvements to the HTWTP, such 

as pipeline distribution, access, and site improvements. 




During these additional investigations of the Serra Fault system, the SFPUC identified areas 

along the SAPL2, SAPL3, and SSBPL that are susceptible to liquefaction, ground shaking, and 

landslides (G&E/GTC Joint Venture, 2011). As a result of these studies, the SFPUC identified the 

six pipeline segments in need of seismic improvements that are the subject of this EIR. The 

proposed project does not include any new pipelines, an increase the size or capacity of existing 

pipelines, or an increase in the normal operating capacity of the regional water system. 

3.3 Goals and Objectives 

As described above and in Section 2.2.2, SFPUC Water System Improvement Program, the 

proposed project is part of the SFPUC’s WSIP. 

As stated in the PEIR, the WSIP is intended to deliver capital improvements that enhance the SFPUC’s 

ability to provide reliable, affordable, high-quality water to its customers in an environmentally 

sustainable manner. The WSIP includes a water supply strategy, modifications to system operations, 

and construction of a series of facility improvement projects. Although the PPSU project was not 

originally identified in the WSIP PEIR, it is considered a WSIP project as described above and in 

Section 2.2, Background – Regional Water System and the Water System Improvement Program. 

The goal of the proposed project is to improve the seismic reliability of transmission pipelines 

between HTWTP and the Capuchino, Baden, and San Pedro Valve Lots in the event of a major 

earthquake on the San Andreas Fault. The objectives of the project would be achieved by 

completing proposed improvements designed to prevent the failure of SAPL2, SAPL3, and 

SSBPL, and maintain their reliability during a major seismic event. 


 

 

 




from the HTWTP to downstream facilities after a major San Andreas earthquake and achieve 

WSIP seismic reliability LOS goals. 






3.4 Existing Facilities 

As described above, the existing SAPL2, SAPL3, and SSBPL water transmission pipelines deliver 

water from the HTWTP to the SFPUC’s regional water system. The location of the existing 

alignment for these three pipelines within the project vicinity is shown on Figure 3-1. 

The existing pipelines are described briefly below (G&E/GTC Joint Venture, 2011). 




 

SAPL2 is a 54-inch-diameter riveted lockbar steel pipe that was constructed by the Spring Valley 

Water Company in approximately 1928. The original pipe features lockbar joints for longitudinal 

joints and rivets for circumferential joints. Several sections of SAPL2 have been reconstructed or 

encased since 1928. Modifications to the original pipeline were made in the 1950s, 1960s, and early 

1980s. Pipeline improvements in the vicinity of the proposed project include: 

 

 

 

In the vicinity of the San Bruno North site, a structural arch plate was installed over the 

pipe, and a concrete tunnel was built over an approximately 140-foot portion of SAPL2 to 

support soils placed over the pipe during construction of San Bruno Avenue West in the 

1950s. To the south, SAPL2 was encased in concrete. 

In the vicinity of the San Bruno South site, the pipe is original construction, except at the 

Shelter Creek Condominiums, where it has been relocated and is likely encased in concrete. 

A segment of SAPL2 between San Bruno and Daly City was lined with cement mortar, 

and weakened sections of the pipe were repaired in 1983. However, in the vicinity of the 

Colma and South San Francisco project sites, the pipe is original construction. 

 

SAPL3 was constructed by the SFPUC in 1979, and portions of the pipeline were rehabilitated 

in 1991 and 1997. SAPL3 consists of the following types of pipe segments: 

 

 

Extending north of Baden Valve Lot in South San Francisco, the pipeline consists of 

approximately 17,550 feet of 66-inch pre-stressed concrete cylinder pipe (PCCP) with a steellined 

interior, and approximately 460 feet of 67.5-inch cement mortar-lined and coated steel 

pipe. The PCCP pipe was retrofitted in 1997 with an interior steel 60-inch-diameter liner. 

Extending south of Baden Valve Lot, the pipeline is a 66-inch PCCP, which was 

subsequently lined on the inside with pipe ranging in diameter from 66 inches to 

54 inches. In the vicinity of the San Bruno South site, segments of the pipe have been 

encased in concrete, and the PCCP pipe has been sliplined with smaller (60-inch- or 

57-inch-diameter) steel pipe. 

 

The portion of SSBPL in Millbrae was constructed in 1955 and consists of a 60-inch-diameter 

welded steel pipe. No modifications have been made to the pipe. 

The existing pipelines are located within the SFPUC ROW on land that is either owned by the 

City and County of San Francisco or subject to an easement held by the City. The pipelines are 

located below ground in the vicinity of the sites. Some appurtenances, such as manholes and 

customer service connections, extend either above or below ground in several locations within 

the proposed sites. 

3.5 Proposed Project 

The proposed project consists of seismic upgrades to three SFPUC water transmission pipelines— 

SAPL2, SAPL3, and SSBPL—at five locations on the San Francisco Peninsula. The upgrades 

would improve segments of pipelines to increase reliability during potential seismic events. The 

proposed project activities are listed below and summarized in Table 3-1: 




Project Site 

Pipeline 

Approximate 

Distance of 

Pipe Upgrade 1 

(feet) 

Staging and 

Spoils Areas 

(acres) 

Construction 

Zone 

(acres) 

Table 3-1 

Proposed Project Sites 

Total 

Construction 

Work Area 2 

(acres) 

Proposed 

Project 

Activities 

Colma SAPL2 700 0.77 1.47 2.24 Pipe segment 

replacement 

South San 



North 


South 

SAPL2 720 .05 1.29 1.34 Pipe segment 

replacement 

SAPL2 140 3 0.14 0.76 0.90 Stabilization of 

pipe segment in 

tunnel 

SAPL2 1,170 2.31 1.59 3.90 Pipe segment 

replacement 

SAPL3 1,050 Pipe segment 

replacement 

Millbrae SSBPL 900 2.03 1.07 3.10 Pipe segment 

replacement 

Source: G&E Engineering Systems, Inc., 2012; PPSU project analysis, URS. 

Notes: 

1 Approximate distance of pipe is measured as horizontal distance. Total length of pipe to be replaced may be longer, due to the vertical changes along the pipeline. 

2 Total Construction Work Area is the sum of Staging and Spoils Areas and the Construction Zone. 

3 Estimated length of work in tunnel. 

ROW = right-of-way 

Existing Uses – Site 

and Vicinity 

Site: Vacant SFPUC ROW and area within Kohl’s 

Department Store Parking Lot 

Adjacent Uses: Commercial and cemetery 

Site: Vacant SFPUC ROW, Westborough Boulevard 

and area within Pacific Supermarket Parking Lot 

Adjacent Uses: Commercial, residential, and 

recreational 

Site: Vacant SFPUC ROW and area within Caltrans 

ROW; portion of right-hand eastbound lane on San 

Bruno Avenue West 

Adjacent Uses: Commercial, residential, 

recreational 

Site: Vacant SFPUC ROW, Whitman Way, and areas 

within parking lots for Peninsula High School and 

San Bruno Chinese Church 

Adjacent Uses: Residential, church, school, open 

space, and recreational 

Site: Vacant SFPUC ROW, areas within a golf 

course, open space, and residential lots 

Adjacent Uses: Residential and recreational 




Colma Site – Replacement of an approximately 700-foot 4 segment of SAPL2; 

South San Francisco Site – Replacement of an approximately 720-foot segment of SAPL2; 

San Bruno North Site – Stabilization of SAPL2 where it extends through a tunnel; 5 

San Bruno South Site – Replacement of an approximately 1,170-foot segment of SAPL2 and 

an approximately 1,050-foot segment of SAPL3; and 

Millbrae Site – Replacement of an approximately 900-foot segment of SSBPL. 

Proposed project activities are described for each site below. 

3.5.1 Colma Site 

At the Colma site, the proposed construction activities would include the installation of a new 

54-inch-diameter steel pipeline to replace the existing 54-inch-diameter riveted lockbar steel 

pipeline for an approximately 700-foot segment of SAPL2. The existing pipeline consists of 

lockbar 6 joints for longitudinal joints and rivets for circumferential joints, which could fail due to 

soil liquefaction during an earthquake (G&E Engineering Systems, Inc., 2012; Kennedy/Jenks 

Consultants, 2012; Young and Manders, n.d.). The new pipeline segment would be constructed 

with thick-welded steel, designed to withstand the expected differential settlement and lateral 

spread due to liquefaction during a seismic event (G&E Engineering Systems, Inc., 2012). 

The segment of pipeline to be replaced is south of Serramonte Boulevard, extending to 

approximately 100 feet north of Collins Avenue. Open-trench construction techniques would be 

used: the existing pipeline would be excavated and removed; the trench would be excavated to 

an additional depth and width to allow for placement of support and trench backfill materials; 

and the new pipeline would be installed in the same general location as the existing pipeline. The 

new pipeline would be installed at depths ranging from approximately 9 feet to 16 feet below 

ground surface (bgs) and would extend under an existing box culvert that conveys a tributary of 

Colma Creek, as shown on Figure 3-7. As described under Section 3.8.1, Pipeline Replacement 

and Stabilization, a portion of the box culvert would be demolished to allow access to SAPL2, 

and subsequently replaced in kind. This culvert is considered other waters of the United States, 

subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; as well as waters of the State of 

California, under the jurisdiction of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). In 

addition, a concrete v-ditch designed for slope stability or to carry runoff away from the vicinity 

of the site during precipitation events would be removed for construction activities. After 

completion of the pipeline replacement, the SFPUC would replace the v-ditch in kind. The 

v-ditch is considered a water of the State of California, and is under the jurisdiction of the 

RWQCB. 

4 Throughout this EIR, approximate pipe replacement lengths are provided as horizontal distances. The total length of 

pipe to be replaced may be longer, due to the vertical changes along the pipeline. 

5 Currently, SAPL2 extends through a concrete tunnel but is not supported within the tunnel. Stabilization activities 

would entail the injection of grouting to fill the void under the pipeline within the tunnel, or the installation of pipe 

stabilization structures within the tunnel to prevent it from shifting during a seismic event. 

6 Lockbar joints, an old construction method, consists of two cast half pipe steel sections joined longitudinally with a 

locking metal bar. 



Plan and Profile for SAPL2 

Existing 54” SAPL2 

Collins Ave 

New 54” SAPL2 


Underground 

Concrete Culvert 

Serramonte Blvd 


Kohl’s Department Store 

$ 

Not to scale 

160 

Existing Ground Line 

150 

Collins Ave 

140 

10/4/12 hk/vsa ..T:\SFPUC CS-116 Peninsula Pipelines\DEIR 2012\ADEIR2\Fig3_7_Colma_P&P.ai 

Elevation (ft.) 

130 

120 

110 

100 

90 

Existing 

Pipeline 

0 100 

Source: G&E Engineering Systems, Inc., September 2011. 

New Pipeline 



Underground 

Concrete Culvert (Creek) 

Serramonte Blvd 

Existing 

54” SAPL2 

200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 

Distance (ft.) 

COLMA PLAN AND PROFILE 




FIGURE 3-7


Two different trench types would be used: controlled low-strength material trench and normal 

trench. 7 Additionally, the existing pipe and valves connecting SAPL2 with the existing customer 

service connection, located approximately 59 feet to 70 feet south of Serramonte Boulevard, 

would be replaced. 

3.5.2 South San Francisco Site 

At the South San Francisco site, the proposed construction activities would include the 

installation of a new 54-inch-diameter steel pipeline to replace the existing 54-inch-diameter 

riveted lockbar steel pipeline for an approximately 720-foot segment of SAPL2. As described 

above, the existing SAPL2 pipeline consists of lockbar joints for longitudinal joints and rivets for 

circumferential joints, which could fail due to liquefaction of soils during an earthquake (G&E 

Engineering Systems, Inc., 2012). The new pipeline segment would be constructed with thickwelded 

steel, designed to withstand the expected differential settlement and lateral spread due to 

liquefaction during a seismic event (G&E Engineering Systems, Inc., 2012). 

The approximately 720-foot segment of pipeline to be replaced is from approximately 45 feet south of 

Arroyo Drive, extending approximately 230 feet to Westborough Boulevard, approximately 170 feet 

under Westborough Boulevard, and then another 270 feet to West Orange Avenue. North and south 

of Westborough Boulevard, open-trench construction techniques would be used, and the new 

pipeline would be installed in same general location as the existing pipeline, shown on Figure 3-8. As 

described under Section 3.8.1, Pipeline Replacement and Stabilization, jack-and-bore techniques 

would be used to jack a steel casing underneath Westborough Boulevard, into which the new pipe 

would be installed. The pipeline would be installed at depths ranging from approximately 11 feet to 

30 feet bgs, and would extend under the existing creek culvert. Two different trench types would be 

used: controlled low-strength material trench and normal trench. In addition, the project would 

include replacement of the existing pipe and valves connecting the customer service connection, 

located approximately 50 feet south of Westborough Avenue, with SAPL2. 

3.5.3 San Bruno North Site 

At the San Bruno North site, construction activities would entail the stabilization of 

approximately 140 feet of SAPL2 within the tunnel from San Bruno Avenue West to just before 

the San Bruno Avenue West northbound exit from I-280, through which SAPL2 currently 

extends, as shown on Figure 3-9. Project construction activities would include excavation of two 

access pits above the existing tunnel, removal of portions of the tunnel roof to gain access to the 

tunnel, and the injection of grouting to fill the void under the pipeline within the tunnel, or the 

installation of pipe supports within the tunnel. The access pits would be approximately 10 feet 

wide by 10 feet long. It is estimated that the roof of the tunnel is 10 feet bgs. The stabilization 

efforts are intended to enable SAPL2 to withstand the expected effects of ground shaking during 

a seismic event (G&E Engineering Systems, Inc., 2012). 

7 A normal trench is backfilled with granular material, such as gravel or sand materials, and a controlled low-strength 

material trench is backfilled with controlled low-strength material. Controlled low-strength material is cementitious 

grout-like material used primarily as backfill in lieu of granular, compacted backfill. 




54” SAPL2 

Surveyed 

66” SAPL3 

Surveyed 

Arroyo Drive 

$ 

Not to scale 

West Orange Ave 

Westborough Blvd 

Camaritas Ave 

30” Baden- 

Merced Pipeline 

Surveyed 

54” SAPL2 

As-Designed 

10/4/12 hk/vsa ..T:\SFPUC CS-116 Peninsula Pipelines\DEIR 2012\ADEIR2\Fig3_8_SSF_P&P.ai 


80 

70 

60 

Existing Pipeline 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 


New Pipeline 

0 100 

Source: G&E Engineering Systems, Inc., September 2011. 

Note: Location and dimensions of boring pits are approximate. 

Boring Pit 

Concrete Culvert 

(Creek) 

Elevation of the 

existing pipe under 


is unknown 


New 66” Steel 

Casing Pipe 150 ft. 

Boring Pit 



Existing 

54” SAPL2 

200 300 400 500 600 700 800 


SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PLAN AND PROFILE 




FIGURE 3-8

$ 


San Bruno Avenue 

I-280 Off-Ramp 

End Concrete Tunnel and 

Begin Concrete Encasement 

End Concrete 

Encasement 

Existing 54” SAPL 

Begin Concrete Tunnel 

New Lateral 

Pipe Support 

Begin Structural Plate 

End Structural Plate 

New Lateral Pipe Support 

Not to scale 

120± Existing 72” Structural Plate Arch 

10/9/12 vsa ..T:\SFPUC CS-116 Peninsula Pipelines\DEIR 2012\ADEIR2\Fig3_19_SBN_P&P.ai 


210 

200 

190 

Source: Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, August 2012. 


Existing San Bruno Avenue 

180 

170 



160 

150 

140± Existing Concrete Tunnel 


155± Existing 

Concrete Encasement 

140 

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 


SAN BRUNO NORTH PLAN AND PROFILE 




FIGURE 3-9


3.5.4 San Bruno South Site 

At the San Bruno South site, construction activities would include the installation of a new 54-inchdiameter 

steel pipeline to replace the existing 54-inch-diameter steel pipeline for an approximately 

1,170-foot segment of SAPL2. The existing pipeline consists of lockbar joints for longitudinal joints 

and rivets for circumferential joints, which could fail at the fault crossing location in the event of an 

earthquake (G&E Engineering Systems, Inc., 2012). The new pipeline would be constructed with 

thick-welded steel, designed to withstand the expected loads and ground offset imposed by the 

Serra Fault on the pipeline during a seismic event (G&E Engineering Systems, Inc., 2012). 

Open-trench construction techniques would be used, and the new pipeline would be installed in 

same general alignment as the existing pipeline. The pipeline would be installed at depths 

ranging from approximately 11 feet to 32 feet bgs. Four different trench types would be used: 

controlled low-strength material trench, normal trench, and two different special trenches with 

expanded polystyrene backfill. 8 In addition to the project activities for SAPL2 above, the 

proposed project would include the installation of a new 66-inch-diameter steel pipeline to 

replace the existing 66-inch-diameter steel SAPL3. An approximately 1,050-foot segment of 

SAPL3 would be replaced. The new pipeline would be thick-welded steel, designed to withstand 

the expected loads and ground offset imposed by the Serra Fault on the pipeline during a seismic 

event (G&E Engineering Systems, Inc., 2012). 

Open-trench construction techniques would be used; a portion of the pipeline would be installed 

at a lower elevation than the existing pipeline, as shown on Figure 3-10. The new alignment of the 

pipeline would be at depths similar to those described above for SAPL2. A normal trench would 

be used for the length of the new pipeline. 

A concrete v-ditch designed for slope stability or to carry runoff away from the vicinity of the site 

during precipitation events would be removed for construction activities. After completion of the 

pipeline replacement, the SFPUC would replace the v-ditch in kind. The v-ditch is considered 

waters of the State of California, and is under the jurisdiction of the RWQCB. 

3.5.5 Millbrae Site 

At the Millbrae site, construction activities would include installation of a new 61-inch-diameter 

steel pipeline to replace the existing 61-inch-diameter steel SSBPL pipeline, from the eastern curb 

of Ridgewood Drive and extending approximately 900 feet to the east. The new pipeline segment 

would be constructed with thick-welded steel, designed to withstand the expected loads and 

ground offset imposed by the Serra Fault on the pipeline during a seismic event (G&E 

Engineering Systems, Inc., 2012). 

Open-trench construction would be used, and the new pipeline would be installed in the same 

general location as the existing pipeline. The pipeline would be installed at depths ranging up to 

18 feet bgs; a portion of the pipeline would be installed at a lower elevation than the existing 

pipeline, as shown on Figure 3-11. Three different trench types would be used: controlled lowstrength 

material trench; normal trench; and special wide trench, with pea gravel backfill 

designed to improve the pipeline’s performance in a seismic event. 

8 Expanded polystyrene backfill is a low-density cellular plastic foam solid used as a lightweight fill for construction on 

soft ground. 



$ 


Driveway to San Bruno Chinese Church 



Not to scale 


Whitman Way 

Shelter Creek Lane 


400 

380 

360 



Existing Steel Pipe 

to be Removed 

10/4/12 hk/vsa ..T:\SFPUC CS-116 Peninsula Pipelines\DEIR 2012\ADEIR2\Fig3_10_SBS_P&P.ai 


340 

320 

300 

280 

260 

240 

220 

200 

180 

Existing 

Pipeline 

160 

0 100 

Source: G&E Engineering Systems, Inc., February 2011. 

Note: The profile shown for SAPL3 is generally representative of the profile for SAPL2. 

New Pipeline 


to be Removed 

New Ground Line 

Whitman Way 




200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 


SAN BRUNO SOUTH PLAN AND PROFILE 




FIGURE 3-10

Ridgewood 

Drive 

Plan and Profile for SSBPL 

Hacienda Way 

1100 

1080 

New 61” SSBPL 

10/4/12 hk/vsa ..T:\SFPUC CS-116 Peninsula Pipelines\DEIR 2012\ADEIR2\Fig3_11_Millbrae_P&P.ai 


400 

350 

300 

250 

200 

150 

$ 

Not to scale 

Ridgewood Drive 

Existing 

Pipeline 

New Pipeline 

See inset for details 



0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 

Source: G&E Engineering Systems, Inc., February 2011. 



Golf Course 

Existing 61” SSBPL 

Inset 

270 

260 

250 

240 


to be Removed 

230 

220 

210 

200 

190 

180 

170 

160 

New Pipeline 

Below Existing 

Pipeline 

Existing 

Ground Line 

500 600 


700 

MILLBRAE PLAN AND PROFILE 




FIGURE 3-11


3.6 SFPUC Standard Construction Measures 

The SFPUC has established standard construction measures for all WSIP projects that would be 

implemented as part of the proposed project (SFPUC, 2007a). The main objectives of these 

measures are to: 

 

 

 

Reduce impacts on existing resources to the extent feasible; 

Include activities such as early identification of sensitive environmental resources in the 

WSIP project area; and 

Notify businesses, owners, and residents of adjacent areas potentially affected by the WSIP 

projects about the nature, extent, and duration of construction activities. 

The SFPUC would ensure that the proposed project’s contract specifications contain uniform 

minimum provisions to address these issues. 

3.7 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Actions 

In addition to standard construction measures, the SFPUC has established greenhouse gas 

reduction actions that would be implemented for all projects completed as part of the WSIP. The 

SFPUC would include the following measures in the contractor’s specifications, which in 

addition to having other environmental benefits, would help reduce greenhouse gas emissions: 

 

 

The SFPUC would require that all contractors maintain tire inflation to the manufacturers’ 

inflation specifications and limit idling time; and 

The SFPUC would implement a construction worker education program. 

3.8 Project Construction 

This section describes the proposed project construction activities and includes the following topics: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pipeline replacement and stabilization; 

Excavation and stockpiling of soil; 

Spoils disposal and removal of construction and demolition debris; 

Pipeline shutdown and startup; 

Dewatering; 

Construction staging and spoils areas; 

Site access and construction vehicle routes; 

Project workforce and construction vehicle parking; and 

Construction schedule and equipment. 

The recommendations and requirements of the geotechnical investigations completed for the 

PPSU project would be implemented during project design and construction. Specific 

requirements pertain to each of the following activities: site preparation; excavations and ground 

support; groundwater/dewatering; pipeline trenching; pipe bedding and pipe-zone backfill; 

trench zone backfill; trenchless crossings; modulus of soil reaction; thrust block design; and 

corrosion (GTC, 2011a, GTC, 2011b, and GTC, 2011c). 




3.8.1 Pipeline Replacement and Stabilization 

3.8.1.1 Common Construction Elements for Pipeline Replacement 

With the exception of the San Bruno North site, construction activities at all of the sites that 

comprise the project would use shored open-trench construction techniques for the pipe 

replacement. In addition to open-trench construction, activities at the South San Francisco site 

would use the jack-and-bore construction method for an approximately 170-foot portion of the 

pipeline segment to be replaced under Westborough Boulevard, described under Unique 

Construction Elements, below. Activities at the San Bruno North site would use the methods 

described under Unique Construction Elements, below. 

Open-trench construction for the pipe replacement would generally include the following 

activities: (1) mobilization of the site, including removal of vegetation and grading; (2) trench 

excavation and shoring, as necessary; (3) removal of existing pipe and installation of new pipe; 

(4) trench backfill and compacting; and (5) surface restoration and landscaping. 

Site Mobilization and Preparation 

Site mobilization and preparation would include the preparation of the site for excavation and, 

depending on the site, would require the removal of existing structures, pavement, and vegetation 

consistent with the SFPUC’s Right-of-Way Encroachment Policy (SFPUC, 2007b), the SFPUC’s 

Right-of-Way Integrated Vegetation Management Policy (SFPUC, 2007c), and with the terms of 

existing easements, as applicable. Existing encroachments on SFPUC property would be removed 

prior to construction. Such encroachments include small structures, fences, and landscaping 

belonging to the properties through which the SFPUC ROW extends. Within each site, some trees 

may be removed, particularly those located above the pipelines. However, more extensive tree 

removal would be required at the South San Francisco and Millbrae sites, as described below under 

Unique Construction Elements. Survey work and potholing 9 would be completed first to precisely 

locate the pipeline and other underground utilities. Topsoil would then be removed and either offhauled 

or stored for reuse. In paved areas, the pavement would be broken up and removed for 

recycling. Temporary fencing would be installed around construction zones and staging areas. 

Gravel would be laid down in some locations along the construction zone to provide traction for 

the movement of equipment. Mobilization would also include pipeline shutdown and dewatering, 

described in Section 3.8.4, Pipeline Shutdown and Startup; and Section 3.8.5, Dewatering. 

Trench Excavation and Shoring 

Trenches would be excavated to allow for the removal of the existing pipe. Approximately 

500 feet of trench could be open at one time. The existing pipe would be cut using a torch, and 

removed by crane or backhoe. Once the existing pipe is removed, additional soil would be 

excavated along the length of the pipeline segment to be replaced, to allow for installation of 

supporting materials under the new pipe. Final trench excavation would be approximately 

10 feet to 50 feet wide, and from approximately 11 feet to 32 feet deep, depending on the type of 

trench to be constructed and the depth of the new pipe. Open-trench construction would proceed 

9 Potholing entails removing material, such as soil or asphalt, to verify the location and depth of the pipeline prior to excavation. 




at a rate of approximately 30 to 100 linear feet per day, with approximately 500 feet of open 

trench at any given time. Section 3.8.3, Spoils Disposal and Removal of Construction and 

Demolition Debris, describes the use and off-haul of excavated soils and pipe debris. 

The sidewalls of trenches would be stabilized using standard shoring methods, in accordance 

with the SFPUC’s Health and Safety requirements and the California Occupational Safety and 

Health Administration’s requirements (California Code of Regulations Title 8, Chapter 4, 

Section 1541). Shoring methods would include hydraulic shoring, soldier pile shoring, or sheet 

pile shoring methods. Hydraulic shoring entails aluminum side walls that are supported by 

vertical and horizontal hydraulic struts installed within the excavated trench. Soldier pile shoring 

entails installation of steel H-beams at intervals along the trench and extending below the trench, 

and installation of a steel plate or timber lagging between the beams to form the walls of the 

trench. Steel beams would be installed using either a drill rig or pile driver and crane. Additional 

bracing within the trench may be installed. Sheet pile shoring entails installation of interlocking 

sheets of steel that will form a continuous trench wall. Sheet pile shoring would be installed by a 

hydraulic, diesel, or vibrating hammer and crane, and would extend below the trench. During 

nonwork hours, open trenches within the roadways would be covered with steel plates, and 

trenches in other areas would be fenced off. Prior to pipe installation, trenches would be 

prepared by installing materials that support the pipeline, such as sand or polystyrene slabs. 

Removal of Existing Pipe and Installation of New Pipe 

The existing pipe would be removed, new pipe would be welded into place, the joints would be 

inspected, and a protective coating would be applied. Hydrostatic testing of the pipeline would 

be completed to verify the structural integrity of the pipeline, as described in Section 3.8.4, 

Pipeline Shutdown and Startup. 

Trench Backfill 

Trenches would be backfilled with materials to meet the specifications of the trench design. Backfilled 

trenches would be compacted and graded to restore soils to general pre-construction conditions, 

except where the slope would be redesigned. For example, in most cases, the finished grade would 

typically be similar to existing grade; however, at the San Bruno South site, the finished grade along 

SAPL3 would be lower than existing grade in order to match the grade along the adjacent SAPL2 for a 

portion of the replacement. An estimated total of approximately 32,190 cubic yards of trench backfill 

materials would be imported to all of the sites. In addition, new pipeline and shoring materials would 

be trucked to the sites. In total, approximately 3,520 truck trips would be required for on-haul of these 

materials. Construction debris would be hauled away for disposal as described in Section 3.8.3, Spoils 

Disposal and Removal of Construction and Demolition Debris. 

Surface Restoration and Revegetation 

Topsoil would be replaced in disturbed areas, which would be re-vegetated with native plant 

seed mix. The ROW would generally be returned to pre-construction conditions. However, in 

accordance with the SFPUC’s Right-of-Way Integrated Vegetation Management Policy (SFPUC, 

2007c), trees generally would not be replanted along the pipeline because their roots could 

damage the pipeline. Vegetation would be monitored for up to a year to ensure it has become 

established. Permitted structures in the ROW that would be removed during construction would 




be replaced; however, unpermitted structures would not be replaced, in accordance with the 

SFPUC’s Right-of-Way Encroachment Policy (SFPUC, 2007b). 

Unique Construction Elements for Pipeline Stabilization or Replacement 

Creek Culvert Work at Colma Site 

The box culvert that conveys waters of a tributary to Colma Creek across the Colma site is located 

above the existing SAPL2 pipe. To allow access to SAPL2 for construction activities, the portion 

of the culvert that is located within the trench area for SAPL2 may need to be demolished. 

Construction methods used to collect and discharge the water in the culvert during construction 

may include temporary piping around the demolished culvert section, or construction of a 

cofferdam. If temporary piping is used, flexible piping would be installed between the source of 

the water and a point of discharge—either a storm drain or another inlet to the culvert. If a 

cofferdam is used, a collection liner and shoring, such as sand bags or steel and wood, would be 

installed to collect the water in the culvert, which would then be pumped out and discharged 

through temporary piping to a storm drain or another inlet to the culvert. Once the new water 

transmission pipe is installed, the culvert would be replaced in kind. 

Access Pits and Tunnel Work at San Bruno North Site 

Construction activities at the San Bruno North site would stabilize the SAPL2 pipeline that 

extends through an existing tunnel. Activities would include excavation of access pits and tunnel 

work. Project construction activities would include excavation of two access pits above the 

existing tunnel, removal of portions of the tunnel roof to gain access to the tunnel, and the 

injection of grouting to fill the void under the pipeline within the tunnel, or the installation of 

pipe stabilization structures within the tunnel. 

Two access pits, approximately 10 feet wide by 10 feet in length, would be excavated above the 

tunnel; the precise locations of the pits would be determined during final design. One of the access 

pits would be constructed on the sidewalk and extend into a portion of the right-hand eastbound 

lane of San Bruno Avenue West, requiring closure of the lane during construction. The other pit 

would be located within a landscaped area on Caltrans property. The interior of the tunnel would 

be accessed by removal of portions of the tunnel roof. Grouting would be injected to fill the void 

under the pipeline within the tunnel, and/or new pipe supports, such as concrete, would be 

installed within the tunnel at intervals of approximately 50 feet. The roof of the tunnel would be 

repaired once tunnel work is completed. The access pits would be backfilled and graded to restore 

soils to pre-construction conditions. Topsoil would be replaced in disturbed areas, which would be 

re-vegetated with native plant seed mix. Vegetation would be monitored for up to a year to ensure 

it has become established. Construction debris would be hauled away for disposal, as described in 

Section 3.8.3, Spoils Disposal and Removal of Construction and Demolition Debris. 

Jack-and-Bore Construction at South San Francisco Site 

The jack-and-bore method would be used at the South San Francisco site for the approximately 

170-foot section of the pipeline replacement that extends under Westborough Boulevard. In jackand-bore 

construction, a tubular steel casing is pushed and drilled (i.e., “jacked” and “bored”) 

horizontally underground through the soil, and a new “carrier” pipe is installed through the 

casing. Pits would be excavated at either end of the bore; a “jacking pit” would be excavated at 




the beginning of a section and a “receiving pit” at the end. The pits, shown on Figure 3-3, would 

be approximately 20 feet wide, up to 50 feet long, and up to 30 feet deep, and would be shored by 

either the soldier pile or sheet pile shoring methods, as described above. 

The boring machine would be placed in the jacking pit, tracks for the machine would be installed, 

an auger would be inserted in a 66-inch casing, and the machine would push the auger and 

casing into the ground simultaneously while the machine is turning a cutting head through the 

ground. The auger would carry the debris through the auger and back to the machine, where the 

dirt and debris would be removed from the pit. 

A new 54-inch welded steel pipe (carrier pipe) would then be inserted, and the space between the 

casing and carrier pipe would be grouted. The ends of the carrier pipe would be connected with 

new pipe sections in the pits. 

A new connection to the existing customer service turnout and other appurtenances would be 

installed. Construction activities would be completed as described above for the open-trench 

method. Dewatering of the insertion pits would be performed as described in Section 3.8.5, 

Dewatering. Truck trips associated with jack-and-bore construction are included in the estimates 

provided under Section 3.2, Excavation and Stockpiling of Soil, and Section 3.8.3, Spoils Disposal 

and Removal of Construction and Demolition Debris, above and in Table 3-2. 

Project Site 

Estimated 

Excavation 

Volume 

(cubic yards) 1 

Table 3-2 

Project Materials Transport 

Estimated 

Off-Haul 

Truck 

Trips 2 

Estimated 

On-Haul 

Truck 

Trips 

Estimated 

Total Truck 

Trips 

Estimated 

Average 

Trips Per 

Day 3 

Estimated 

Maximum 

Trips per 

Day 4 

Colma 4,650 280 280 560 11 44 

South San Francisco 12,090 680 680 1,360 27 80 

San Bruno North 50 10 10 20 2 8 

San Bruno South 38,500 2,040 2,040 4,080 21 118 

Millbrae 5,650 530 510 1,040 12 65 

Total 60,940 3,540 3,520 7,060 — — 

Source: Roche, 2011a. 

Notes: 

Truck trips are calculated based on a 10-cubic-yard truck capacity. Pipe and shoring import to site is based on a 40-footlong 

flatbed truck. 

Based on the conservative assumption that on-haul and off-haul trips would be separate, meaning the same truck would 

not bring materials to the site and then remove materials from the site. 

Off-haul includes truck trips for tree and vegetation removal. 

On-haul trips include construction materials, trench backfill materials, and new pipe. 

Trip estimate conservatively assumes shoring would be removed post-construction. 

1 Not all excavated material would be off-hauled. Some materials would be reused on site. 

2 Up to 32,190 cubic yards of construction debris and excavated soils would be off-hauled. 

3 Estimated average trips per day is the total estimated trips divided by the anticipated duration of construction 

activities at the site. 

4 Estimated maximum trips per day is the maximum trips anticipated for any day during construction activities based 

on phasing of activities at the site. 




Tree Removal at the South San Francisco and Millbrae Sites 

While some tree removal could be required at most sites, more extensive tree removal efforts would 

occur at the South San Francisco and Millbrae sites to allow access to the pipeline, and in accordance 

with the SFPUC’s Right-of-Way Integrated Vegetation Management Policy (SFPUC, 2007c). 

At the South San Francisco site, a grove of approximately 20 willows would be removed from the 

ROW along SAPL2, north of Westborough Boulevard. This would entail cutting the limbs, if 

necessary, and cutting the trunks into segments. Debris would be chipped and stumps would be 

ground to a specified depth below grade and may be treated with herbicide to prevent the trees 

from growing back. Debris would be removed by truck, as shown in Table 3-2. Tree stumps 

would be excavated and removed above the pipelines and within the area to be trenched. 

At the Millbrae site, the dense grove of approximately 300 trees, primarily eucalyptus and oaks, 

would be removed from the ROW along SSBPL. This would generally be accomplished by first 

removing the limbs for chipping, cutting the trunks into segments for chipping, and then 

grinding stumps to a specified depth below grade. Tree limbs and trunk segments with a 

diameter too great to be chipped (approximately 20 inches or greater) would be removed by 

truck, as reflected in Table 3-2. Tree stumps would be excavated and removed above the 

pipelines and within the area to be trenched. For trees within the ROW that are not above the 

pipeline and not within the area to be trenched, tree stumps would be ground down to a 

maximum of 6 feet below grade and may be treated with herbicide to prevent the trees from 

growing back. As described in Section 3.8.7, Site Access and Construction Vehicle Routes, some 

tree removals and/or trimming would also occur along the access route through the City of 

Millbrae open space area. 

3.8.2 Excavation and Stockpiling of Soil 

Excavated soils, including topsoil, would be stockpiled during construction at each site, and may 

be reused as backfill and/or off-hauled for recycling or disposal as described in Section 3.8.3, 

Spoils Disposal and Removal of Construction and Demolition Debris. Estimated spoils from 

excavation would range from approximately 50 to 38,500 cubic yards per site, as shown in 

Table 3-2. Approximately 61,000 cubic yards would be excavated for the entire project. Spoils 

would be temporarily stored in the SFPUC ROW, either in the area designated as the 

construction zone or in the staging and spoils areas, as shown on Figures 3-2 through 3-6. 

Additionally, spoils may be temporarily stockpiled in areas designated for staging and spoils 

areas outside of the ROW. Temporary stockpiling of tree debris may also occur at the sites, 

particularly at the South San Francisco and Millbrae sites, where tree debris would be chipped 

and stockpiled along the SFPUC ROW prior to removal. See Section 3.8.6, Construction Staging 

and Spoils Areas, for additional information. 

3.8.3 Spoils Disposal and Removal of Construction and 

Demolition Debris 

Construction debris would include tree debris, soils, pavement, and existing pipelines that would be 

removed and trucked to Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill in Half Moon Bay for recycling or disposal. 




While each site would have a minimal amount of vegetation debris associated with preparing the sites 

for construction, the South San Francisco and Millbrae sites would have an estimated 50 cubic yards 

and 205 cubic yards of tree debris, respectively, associated with the removal of the dense groves that 

are established above the pipelines. An estimated 5 truck trips and 21 truck trips would be required to 

remove the debris from the South San Francisco and Millbrae sites, respectively. 

Spoils excavated during construction would be reused as backfill, if they are of a suitable quality, 

and excess soil or soil that is inadequate for backfill (i.e., rocky) would be hauled off site for 

recycling or disposal. Construction debris, including shoring materials, old pipe materials, and 

pavement, would be off-hauled as needed during construction and once construction is 

completed. Up to 32,190 cubic yards of materials would be off-hauled. As shown in Table 3-2, an 

estimated total of approximately 3,540 truck trips would be required to off-haul spoils. 

3.8.4 Pipeline Shutdown and Startup 

Pipeline shutdown activities, primarily dewatering of pipeline sections, would be required prior 

to pipeline construction activities. Pipeline startup activities, including hydrostatic testing and 

disinfection, would be completed prior to operation of the new pipelines following installation. 

During construction activities, including pipeline shutdown and startup, the existing water 

services to wholesale customers would not be interrupted (Huey, 2012). 

For pipeline dewatering, a customized pump would be used that implements manufacturerdesigned 

noise controls. This pump would be similar to the Godwin NC150, which is designed to 

limit noise from pumping operations (Godwin Pumps of America, 2005). 

During pipeline shutdown, water would be drained from sections of the pipelines and would be 

discharged to the nearest storm drain system, open channel, natural creek, or overland in 

accordance with the San Francisco RWQCB’s Waste Discharge Requirements of Order 

No. R2-2008-0102 (RWQCB, 2008), which stipulates requirements related to discharges of 

drinking water from the SFPUC’s water transmission system, including dechlorination 

requirements, flow rates, effluent limitations, and monitoring. For planned discharges such as for 

pipeline shutdown, water would be dechlorinated prior to discharge through the addition of 

treatment chemicals such as sodium bisulfite and calcium thiosulfate. Project-related discharges 

would typically occur over an approximately 1-week period, and flow rates would be controlled 

(typically less than or equal to 3,500 gallons per minute) using best management practices to limit 

potential erosion and discharge of sediment to receiving waters. The discharges would be from 

low spots along the transmission system and would be conducted in compliance with the effluent 

limitations, monitoring requirements, and reporting procedures of RWQCB Order 

No. R2-2008-0102, the SFPUC’s Erosion Control Standard Operating Procedure (RMC Water and 

Environment, 2008), and the SFPUC’s Policies and Procedures for Transmission System 

Discharges (SFPUC, 2009a). 

As shown in Table 3-3, an estimated 5.4 million gallons (MG) of water would be discharged 

from the pipeline sections for dewatering. Dewatering for shutdown of SAPL2 would be 

completed concurrently at the Colma, South San Francisco, San Bruno North, and San Bruno 

South sites. 




Table 3-3 

Discharge Estimates 

Project Site 

Dewatering 

during 

Shutdown 

(million gallons) 

Dewatering Post- 

Hydrostatic 

Testing 


Dewatering Post- 

Disinfection 


SAPL2 

Colma Site 2.1 2 0.1 5.3 2 

South San Francisco Site 0.1 

San Bruno South Site 1 0.1 

SAPL3 

San Bruno South Site 2.4 0.2 6.0 

SSBPL 

Millbrae Site 0.9 0.1 2.1 

Total 5.41 0.6 13.5 

Source: Roche, 2011b. 

Notes: 

1 The shutdown, dewatering, and disinfection activities for the San Bruno North site (SAPL2) are the same as those 

activities for the San Bruno South site (SAPL2), and are therefore not included separately here. 

2 Only one shutdown of SAPL2 would be performed to complete the work at the Colma, South San Francisco, and San 

Bruno South sites. Separate hydrostatic testing and dewatering would be performed for each site. 

Prior to startup, the SFPUC would perform hydrostatic testing and disinfection of the pipes. 

Hydrostatic testing, which is used to verify the structural integrity of the pipeline, entails 

filling sections of the pipeline with clean water, maintaining a test pressure in excess of normal 

operating pressures for a specified period of time (typically 8 hours), and then discharging the 

water. Hydrostatic testing would be completed independently for each segment of pipeline 

replaced, except for SAPL2 at both the San Bruno North and San Bruno South sites, which 

would be tested concurrently. An estimated total of 0.6 MG of hydrostatic test water would be 

discharged. The hydrostatic test water would be discharged to the nearest storm drain system, 

open channel, natural creek, or overland in accordance with the San Francisco RWQCB’s Waste 

Discharge Requirements of Order No. R2-2008-0102 (RWQCB, 2008) or with the State Water 

Resources Control Board’s (SWRCB) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) General Permit (Order 2003-0003-DWQ) for low-threat water quality discharges to 

land. 

After hydrostatic testing, and prior to distribution of water through the pipelines, disinfection 

would be completed. Disinfection of the pipeline typically requires 1 week and includes filling, 

disinfecting, flushing, dechlorinating, and taking water samples from the disinfected pipelines 

for bacteriological analysis and residuals management in compliance with the SFPUC’s Sanitary 




Work Practices and Disinfection (SFPUC, 2009b). Water from the disinfection process would then 

be discharged from the pipe sections to the nearest storm drain system, open channel, natural 

creek, or overland, in accordance with the San Francisco RWQCB’s Waste Discharge 

Requirements of Order No. R2-2008-0102 (RWQCB, 2008) or with the SWRCB’s NPDES General 

Permit (Order 2003-0003-DWQ) for low-threat water quality discharges to land. An estimated 

total of approximately 13.5 MG of water would be discharged due to disinfection activities. 

Disinfection of SAPL2 would be conducted after project activities at both the San Bruno North 

site and the San Bruno South site have been completed. 

3.8.5 Dewatering 

During construction, dewatering may be required for groundwater, rainwater, or other water that 

enters the trenches and pits, such as from potential pipe leakage at upstream valves. Once this water 

is pumped out of the trench or pit, it would be stored, tested, and treated to meet required standards, 

then discharged to a nearby sanitary sewer, stormwater culvert, creek, or overland, similar to the 

initial pipeline shutdown performed by the SFPUC. Discharge rates would not exceed 3,500 gallons 

per minute per pipeline. The construction contractor would be responsible for requesting a permit 

from the appropriate wastewater agency prior to discharge to the sanitary sewer. Discharge of water 

from dewatering activities must be performed in accordance with the requirements of the Statewide 

General Construction Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activity issued 

by the SWRCB, the SWRCB’s NPDES General Permit (Order 2003-0003-DWQ) for low-threat water 

quality discharges to land, and municipal stormwater permits. 

3.8.6 Construction Staging and Spoils Areas 

Potential construction staging and spoils areas have been identified for the proposed project, as 

shown on Figures 3-2 through 3-6 and as summarized in Table 3-4 on the following page. In 

addition to the staging areas at or near each site, a common staging area in South San Francisco 

would be used for the duration of the project construction at all of the PPSU sites. This staging 

area would be used for temporary construction offices (trailers) and worker parking. Trailers 

would be installed on the site and gravel would be placed in areas used for worker parking. No 

ground-disturbing activities related to the PPSU project are proposed within the common staging 

area. 

The SFPUC and/or its contractor may need to secure construction easements or access and use 

agreements for the use of staging and spoils areas on private property that are not within the 

SFPUC ROW. These proposed temporary staging and spoils areas would be used for materials 

and equipment staging and laydown, worker vehicle parking, temporary construction equipment 

trailers and office trailers, and temporary stockpiling of spoils and construction debris. No spoils 

would be left in these areas after project construction is completed. Temporary fencing would be 

installed around these staging areas to prevent public access. See Section 3.8.8, Project Workforce 

and Construction Vehicle Parking, which describes the use of the staging and spoils areas for 

proposed employee parking. 




Table 3-4 

Proposed Construction Staging Areas 

Project Site 

Staging Area 

Approximate 

Size 

(acres) 

Project Activities 

Estimated 

Duration 

of Use 

Colma 

Kohl’s Department Store 

parking lot 

0.24 Laydown staging area 

and staff parking 

2 months 

Vacant SFPUC ROW 0.53 Laydown staging area 2 months 

Subtotal 0.77 



Pacific Supermarket 

parking lot 



3 months 

Subtotal 0.05 

San Bruno North Vacant Caltrans property 0.14 Laydown staging area 1 month 

Subtotal 0.14 

San Bruno South 


parking lot 

Vacant SFPUC ROW along 


0.18 Laydown staging area 9 months 

0.96 Spoils storage 9 months 


parking lot 



9 months 

Vacant land along SFPUC 

ROW 

0.09 Laydown staging area 9 months 

Subtotal 2.31 

Millbrae 

City of Millbrae open 

space area 

1.1 Laydown staging area 4.5 months 1 

Green Hills Country Club/ 

City of Millbrae property 


and vehicle access and 

turnaround 

3 months 

Green Hills Country Club 0.31 Laydown staging area 3 months 

Subtotal 2.03 

Common Staging 

Area 

Vacant land within SFPUC 

ROW on Baden Valve Lot 

0.32 Construction offices and 

staff parking 

12 months 2 

All Project Sites Total 5.62 

Source: G&E Engineering Systems, Inc., 2012; PPSU project analysis, URS. 

Notes: 

1 The duration of staging at the City of Millbrae open space area includes both the tree removal phase and project construction. 

2 The common staging area would be used for the duration of construction at all PPSU sites. 

ROW = right-of-way 





3.8.7 Site Access and Construction Vehicle Routes 

Construction access routes would include both public roadways and unpaved routes. New and 

existing unpaved routes through public and private lands would be required for the Millbrae 

site, as described below. As described in Section 3.8.6, Construction Staging and Spoils Areas, the 

SFPUC and/or its contractor would coordinate with the applicable public agencies and private 

property owners to obtain the necessary temporary construction easements or other access and 

use agreements to facilitate access to the sites. 

On-haul of construction materials, including shoring materials, new pipes, and trench backfill 

materials; and off-haul of construction debris, including old pipe, shoring, tree debris and 

vegetation, and excavated spoils, would require a total of approximately 7,060 truck trips. As 

shown in Table 3-2, the estimated trips per day would range from approximately two to eight 

trips at the San Bruno North site to approximately 21 to 118 truck trips at the San Bruno South 

site. Truck trips for the other sites would fall within that range, as shown in Table 3-2. 

Primary access to the sites that comprise the project and the common staging area would be from 

I-280, as shown on Figure 3-1. Local access is described below, and shown on Figures 3-2 

through 3-6. 

Colma Site. Access would be from I-280 via the Serramonte Boulevard or Hickey Boulevard 

exits, continuing on Serramonte Boulevard, Collins Avenue, or Junipero Serra Boulevard. Access 

to the northern portion of the site is proposed to be through Kohl’s Department Store parking lot 

off Serramonte Boulevard. Staging areas south of the construction zone would be accessed from 

Collins Avenue. 

South San Francisco Site. Access would be from I-280 via the Westborough Boulevard exit, 

continuing on Westborough Boulevard to Camaritas Avenue and Arroyo Drive or West Orange 

Avenue. Access to the northern portion of the construction zone and staging area would be from 

Arroyo Drive, while access to the construction zone south of Westborough Boulevard would be 

from West Orange Avenue. The temporary staging and spoils area proposed at the Pacific 

Supermarket parking lot would be accessed from Camaritas Avenue. 

San Bruno North Site. Access would be from I-280 via the Sneath Lane/San Bruno Avenue West 

exit to San Bruno Avenue West. Due to the location of one of the access pits, the right-hand 

eastbound lane of San Bruno Avenue West would be required to be closed for up to 2 weeks 

during construction. The right-turn-only lane on the I-280 northbound off-ramp adjacent to the 

site would be temporarily closed for a period of up to 10 days. Throughout the 1-month 

construction period at this site, a flagger would be positioned at the entrance to the site. 

San Bruno South Site. Access would be from I-280 via the Sneath Lane/San Bruno Avenue West 

exit to Shelter Creek Lane, Whitman Way, and Courtland Drive. Pipeline replacement across 

Whitman Way (a two-lane roadway with on-street parking) would require temporary closure of 

one travel lane at a time for up to 21 days (for each of the two pipelines to be replaced at this 

location), necessitating alternate one-way traffic operations for approximately 180 feet. Flaggers 

would direct traffic during the lane closures. 




Construction activities associated with the pipeline replacement would temporarily displace 

about 24 of the 33 parking spaces in surface parking Lot B at the Shelter Creek Condominium 

complex (see Figure 3-5). In addition, during pipeline construction, access to the remaining nine 

spaces in Lot B, the lower level of parking Garage 4, and surface parking Lot C, which is 

provided from a driveway off Shelter Creek Lane, would be restricted during construction hours; 

access would be provided via an alternative route from a driveway off of Whitman Way. At the 

end of each day when daytime construction activities are completed, the excavated area would be 

covered with steel plates, and access from Shelter Creek Lane would be restored. 

Millbrae Site. Access would be from I-280 via on-ramp and off-ramps at Larkspur Drive, and the 

southbound on-ramp at Hillcrest Boulevard, continuing on Highway 35 or Larkspur Drive to 

Ridgewood Drive and Lomita Avenue. Access to Bertocchi Lane would be from Highway 101 via 

El Camino Real to Millwood Drive. Access to the Millbrae site would be from unpaved access 

routes, which would require improvements as described below. Access routes to the construction 

zone and staging areas could include the SFPUC ROW through the side yards of residences at 

1100 and 1094 Ridgewood Drive; via Larkspur Drive to an access route through the Green Hills 

Country Club golf course; via Lomita Avenue to an access route through the City of Millbrae 

open space area north of the project area; and/or via Bertocchi Lane through private open space 

to the access route through the City of Millbrae open space area. 

Proposed improvements for these access routes at the Millbrae site are described below. 

 

 

 

 

The access route through the City of Millbrae open space area may require improvements at 

several locations. Access from Lomita Avenue may require trimming of trees near the trail 

and filling of potholes on the trail. In addition, the trail may need to be widened in one 

location, requiring the removal of approximately four trees. Telephone lines that extend 

across the trailhead would be raised by the installation of temporary telephone poles along 

the existing telephone line alignment, to accommodate the height of trucks and equipment 

that would be accessing the trail from Lomita Avenue. To the extent feasible, and as 

determined by the City of Millbrae, the trail would be open to the public for use when it is 

not required for construction access. 

For access from a cul-de-sac at the end of Bertocchi Lane, improvements that may be required 

include removal and/or modification to a portion of an approximately 3-foot-high retaining 

wall, plating over the existing culvert, and compaction of soils. Some trimming of native oaks 

may also be required. 

For access from Larkspur Drive through the Green Hills Country Club golf course, 

improvements would include the removal of the chain link fence at the end of the Larkspur 

Drive cul-de-sac, and placement of steel plates over the cement culvert. 

For access through the SFPUC ROW from Ridgewood Drive, existing small structures, fences, 

landscaping, and other encroachments would be removed from the side yards of 1100 and 

1094 Ridgewood Drive prior to commencement of construction. A permanent retaining wall 

with approximately 10-foot footings would be constructed under the existing back yard fence 

at 1094 Ridgewood Drive to shore up the slope prior to excavation of the pipeline. 




Common Staging Area. Access would be from I-280 via the Westborough Boulevard exit, 

continuing on Westborough Boulevard to El Camino Real to West Orange Avenue. Ingress/egress 

to the SFPUC’s Baden Valve Lot is from a driveway off West Orange Avenue. 

3.8.8 Project Workforce and Construction Vehicle Parking 

The workforce at each site is anticipated to consist of one crew, with up to 20 personnel. A 

maximum of four sites would be under construction simultaneously, as shown on Figure 3-12, 

requiring up to 80 personnel. As described above, staff parking would be located at the common 

staging area for the duration of PPSU construction. Additionally, construction staff parking 

would be located in paved staging and spoils areas or on surface streets at the sites. 

3.8.9 Construction Schedule and Equipment 

Construction is estimated to begin in 2014 and end in 2015, with a total duration of 

approximately 12 months. The duration of construction activities at each site would range from 

1 month to 9 months, as shown in Table 3-5. 

Table 3-5 

Construction Duration at Each Site 

Project Site 

Colma Site (SAPL2) 

Construction Duration 

2 months 

South San Francisco Site (SAPL2) 3 months 1 

San Bruno North Site (SAPL2) 1 month 2 

San Bruno South Site (SAPL2) and (SAPL3) 

9 months 

Millbrae Site (SSBPL) 4.5 months 3 

Source: G&E Engineering Systems, Inc., 2012. 

Notes: 

1 The 3-month duration of construction at South San Francisco includes approximately 2 weeks required for tree 

removal, which will be completed separately and in advance of the 2.5-month construction at the site. 

2 The shutdown, dewatering, and disinfection activities for the San Bruno North site (SAPL2) are the same as those 

activities for the San Bruno South site (SAPL2) and are, therefore, not included in the construction duration. 

3 The 4.5-month duration of construction at Millbrae includes the 1.5 months required for tree removal, which will be 

completed separately and in advance of the 3-month construction at the site. 

As shown on Figure 3-12, construction activities would occur concurrently at multiple sites. 

Construction is anticipated to proceed at the South San Francisco and Millbrae sites first, with the 

removal of the trees in the SFPUC ROW during the fall (October to November). During the 

winter season (November through March), construction is anticipated to occur at the following 

sites: Colma, South San Francisco, San Bruno North, and San Bruno South (SAPL2 only). 

Construction at the San Bruno South (SAPL3 only) and Millbrae sites is anticipated to occur 

during spring/summer season (April through August). Approximately 1 month of construction 

closeout activities would occur, from August 2015 through September 2015. 



2014 2015 

JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 

Tree Removal – Millbrae 

(SSBPL) 

Millbrae 

(SSBPL) 

Tree Removal – 

South San Francisco (SAPL2) 

South San Francisco 

(SAPL2) 


(SAPL2) 


(SAPL3) 

San Bruno North 

(SAPL2) 

12/4/12 vsa..T:\SFPUC CS-116 Peninsula Pipelines\DEIR 2012\SC DEIR\Fig3_12_construct_phasing.ai 

Note: The pipeline shutdown and disinfection activities for the San Bruno North site (SAPL2) 

are the same as those activities for the San Bruno South site (SAPL2) and are included in the 

San Bruno South site duration only. 

Colma 

(SAPL2) 

Construction 

Closeout 

CONSTRUCTION PHASING 




FIGURE 3-12


Construction activities would occur primarily during weekdays, from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. Weekend 

work may be required on a limited basis, although the nature of such work is not currently 

known. Weekend construction hours would be the same as those described for weekdays. 

Nighttime construction may be required at the San Bruno North site. The vibratory rollers and 

pile drivers would not be used during nighttime hours (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.). Nighttime activities 

would also include limited 24-hour pumping for dewatering of the pipelines at a few locations. 

For SSBPL, pumping would be required at four locations in Millbrae: near the intersection of 

Helen Drive and Banbury Lane; near the 5th green on the Green Hills Country Club; Millwood 

Drive and Barcelona Drive; and Millwood Drive and Magnolia Avenue (at the SFPUC’s 

Capuchino Valve Lot). For SAPL2, pumping would be required for dewatering at a single 

location in the project construction zone on Whitman Way by Park Plaza Apartments. For SAPL3, 

pumping would be required at two locations: near the Shelter Creek Condominiums driveway on 

Shelter Creek Lane (near the project site); and farther north on Shelter Creek Lane, also adjacent 

to the Shelter Creek Condominiums. See Section 5.7, Noise, for further details and an analysis of 

the project’s consistency with local noise ordinances and potential nighttime noise impacts. 

Figure 5.7-6, provided therein, shows the proposed dewatering locations. 

There would be three phases of construction activities, with initial tree removal activities at a few sites, 

as shown in Table 3-6 on the following page. Initial tree removal would be completed at the South San 

Francisco and Millbrae sites, where dense groves of trees are present in the SFPUC ROW. The first 

construction phase would entail shutdown and dewatering of the pipeline and mobilization at the 

site, such as installation of fencing, grubbing, and preparation of laydown areas. The second phase 

would include excavation; pipeline removal and installation; hydrostatic testing; and backfill, 

landscaping, and site restoration. The third phase would include disinfection of the pipelines. 

3.9 Operations and Maintenance 

Future operations and maintenance would be the same as existing operations and maintenance 

activities, and would continue to entail yearly visual inspections. Within the first 2 years after 

final construction, and approximately every 10 to 15 years thereafter, inspections would entail 

physically entering the manholes for visual inspections inside the pipelines. On an annual basis, 

water may be discharged from the manholes, as required by other SFPUC projects or inspections. 

3.10 Required Permits 

In addition to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the proposed project would be 

subject to compliance and permitting requirements under federal, State, and local regulations. 

The anticipated agency permits/approvals necessary for the implementation of the proposed 

project are listed below. This Draft EIR is intended to provide the information and environmental 

analysis necessary to assist permitting agencies (also known under CEQA as “responsible 

agencies”) in considering the approvals required for the proposed project. 

3.10.1 Federal 

The following federal approval and consultation would be required for the proposed project, but 

these are not responsible agencies under CEQA: 




Table 3-6 

Typical Construction Activities and Equipment 

Construction Activities Estimated Duration Anticipated Construction Equipment 

Tree Removal (South San Francisco 

and Millbrae sites only; at other 

sites, only a few tree removals may 

be required) 

Approximately 

2 months 1 

Chain saw 

Brush chipper 

Whole tree chippers 

Rubber tire skidder and track skid-steer 

loader 

Haul truck 

Flatbed truck 

Shutdown and dewatering Approximately 1 week Pumps and Hoses 

Generator 

Pickup Truck 

Baker Tanks 

Mobilization 2 

Approximately 2 weeks Flatbed trucks 

Haul trucks 

Pickup trucks 

Shoring and excavation, pipeline 

removal and installation, 

intermittent dewatering, 

hydrostatic testing, backfill and 

restoration 

Approximately 2 to 

3 months per pipeline 

depending on site 3 

Backhoe-Loader 

Cement/Mortar Mixer 

Compactor 4 

Concrete Truck with Pump 

Crane (with hydraulic or diesel impact 

hammer attachments) 4 

Dozer 

Excavator 

Forklift 

Grader 

Generator 

Loader 

Pump 

Street Sweeper 

Tractor 

Trucks (haul, water, flatbed, dump, pickup, 

various off-road) 

Welding Set 

Winch 

Disinfection 

Approximately 2 weeks Pumps and Hoses 

Generator 

Pickup Truck 

Baker Tanks 

Source: Manders, 2012. 

Notes: 

1 Tree removal activities would occur at the South San Francisco and Millbrae sites. Estimated duration for tree 

removal activities would be 2 months, inclusive of both the South San Francisco and Millbrae sites. 

2 Mobilization would occur concurrently with shutdown and dewatering. 

3 Segments of two pipelines (SAPL2 and SAPL3) would be sequentially replaced at the San Bruno South site; work at 

the other sites would only involve one pipeline. 

4 Compactors (such as vibratory rollers) and cranes with impact hammer attachments (used for pile driving) would not 

be used during nighttime hours (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.). 




 

 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – Section 404 Clean Water Act permit; and 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service – Federal Endangered Species Act Section 7 consultation. 

3.10.2 State 

The following State agency approvals would be required for the proposed project: 

 

 

 

 

 

California State Water Resources Control Board – Section 401 Water Quality Certification 

(or waiver); compliance with the NPDES Construction General Permit for stormwater 

discharges associated with construction activities; and compliance with the NPDES General 

Permit for Low-Threat Water Quality Discharges to Land (e.g., for discharge of hydrostatic 

test water from pipes or groundwater from trenches); 

San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board – Compliance with the SFPUC’s 

existing NPDES permit for planned, unplanned, and emergency discharges from the 

drinking water transmission system; 

Caltrans – Encroachment and access permits; 

California Department of Fish and Wildlife – Section 1602 Streambed Alteration 

Agreement; for project construction activities that would substantially divert or obstruct the 

natural flow of any stream; substantially change or use any material from the bed, channel, or 

bank of any stream; or deposit or dispose of debris, waste, or other material containing 

crumbled, flaked, or ground pavement where it may pass into any stream; and 

State Historic Preservation Office – Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act. 

3.10.3 Local 

The following local agency actions, permits, or approvals would be required for the proposed 

project: 

 

 

 

 

 

San Francisco Planning Commission – Certification of the Final EIR; 

SFPUC – Review of the Final EIR, approval of the proposed project, and adoption of CEQA 

findings and mitigation monitoring and reporting program; 

San Francisco Board of Supervisors – Consideration of any appeals of the Planning 

Commission Final EIR certification, adoption of CEQA findings, appropriation of any 

funding related to implementation of the project, and approval of acquisition of property 

rights or interests, if necessary; 

Various cities – Haul permits, encroachment permits, temporary construction easements, 

and leases or other agreements as needed in connection with project construction; and 

San Mateo Union High School District – Memorandum of Agreement with school district. 




3.10.4 Other Actions 

In addition to the federal, State, and local permits and approvals described above, 

implementation of the proposed project would require temporary construction easements or 

other access and use agreements from private property owners and agencies for use of proposed 

staging and spoils areas, and in connection with project construction. 


Fletcher, Angelic, 2012. Personal communication between Angelic Fletcher, Kohl’s Department 

Store Manager, and Mara Feeney, Mara Feeney & Associates. September 20. 



G&E Engineering Systems, Inc., 2012. CUW 36702 Peninsula Pipeline Seismic Upgrade Project, Final 

Conceptual Engineering Report. April. 

Godwin Pumps of America, 2005. Critically-Silenced Dri-Prime Pumps Engineering Data, 

Engineering Catalog, Issue 4. 

GTC (Geotechnical Consultants, Inc.), 2011a. Final Geotechnical Data Report, Peninsula Pipelines 

Seismic Upgrade, CS-101, SF10016B, March. 

GTC (Geotechnical Consultants, Inc.), 2011b. Final Addendum to the Geotechnical Data Report, 

Peninsula Pipelines Seismic Upgrade, CS-101, SF10016C. November. 

GTC (Geotechnical Consultants, Inc.), 2011c. Final Addendum to the Geotechnical Interpretive 

Report, Peninsula Pipelines Upgrade, CS-101, SF10016C, November. 

Huey, Calvin, 2012. Personal correspondence with URS, Corporation. Project Manager for PPSU. 

SFPUC Infrastructure Division. January 20. 

Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, 2012. Technical Memorandum – Review of Final Conceptual Engineering 

Report, Peninsula Pipelines Seismic Upgrade Project. August 28. 

Manders, Heather, 2012. Personal e-mail communication between Heather Manders, PPSU 

Project Engineer, SFPUC and Hannah Young, URS Regarding Construction Equipment. June 22. 

Roche, Anna, 2011a. Personal e-mail communication between Anna Roche, PPSU Environmental 

Project Manager, SFPUC and Hannah Young, URS Regarding Excavation Volumes and Truck 

Trips. November 8. 

Roche, Anna, 2011b. Personal e-mail communication between Anna Roche, PPSU Environmental 

Project Manager, SFPUC and Hannah Young, URS Regarding Discharge Estimates. November 14. 

RMC Water and Environment, 2008. Water Transmission NPDES Technical Support Services, 

Erosion Control Standard Operating Procedure. Technical Memorandum Reference 

No. 0092-004.09. July 16. 




RWQCB (Regional Water Quality Control Board), 2008. Waste Discharge Requirements For The 

San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Drinking 

Water Transmission System, Order No. R2-2008-0102, NPDES No. Ca0038857. Adopted 

December 10, 2008. 

SF Planning (City and County of San Francisco, San Francisco Planning Department), 2008a. San 

Francisco Public Utilities Commission Water System Improvement Program. Final EIR (Case 

No. 2005.0159E, State Clearinghouse No. 200509206). San Francisco Planning Commission. 

Motion No. 17734, October 30. 

SF Planning (City and County of San Francisco, San Francisco Planning Department), 2008b. 

Baden and San Pedro Valve Lots Improvement Project Mitigated Negative Declaration. Case 

No. 2006.1314E. September. 

SFPUC (San Francisco Public Utilities Commission), 2007a. SFPUC Standard Construction 

Measures to be included in Construction Contracts and Project Implementation. Susan Leal, 

SFPUC General Manager, February 27. 

SFPUC (San Francisco Public Utilities Commission), 2007b. Right-of-Way Encroachment Policy, 2007. 

SFPUC (San Francisco Public Utilities Commission), 2007c. Right-of-Way Integrated Vegetation 


SFPUC (San Francisco Public Utilities Commission), 2009a. Water Supply and Treatment Division 

Policies and Procedures Transmission System Discharges. Last revision August 21. 

SFPUC (San Francisco Public Utilities Commission), 2009b. Technical Specifications Division 01: 

General Requirements 01565: Sanitary Work Practices And Disinfection. October 1. 

State of California. California Code of Regulations (CCR), Chapter 4, Section 1541, Excavation, 

General Requirements. 

Young, Sam, and Manders, Heather, n.d. SFPUC Infrastructure Division Memorandum: Review 

Summary of Final Conceptual Engineering Report Peninsula Pipelines Seismic Upgrade Project. 



CHAPTER 4 

 

4.1 Overview 

Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15125(d), this 

section describes land use plans and policies and the manner in which they apply to the 

Peninsula Pipelines Seismic Upgrade (PPSU) project, and then analyzes the project’s consistency 

with applicable plans. 

As described in Chapter 3, Section 3.10, Required Permits, the San Francisco Planning 

Commission is the agency responsible for certifying the environmental impact report (EIR) for 

the proposed project. The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) is responsible for 

adopting the CEQA findings and deciding whether to approve the project. 

Applicable plans and policies addressed in this chapter are organized by agency, and include: 

 

 

 

City and County of San Francisco. San Francisco General Plan, Accountable Planning 

Initiative, San Francisco Sustainability Plan, and San Francisco Municipal Green Building 

Program; 

San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. Water Enterprise Environmental Stewardship 

Policy, Right-of-Way Integrated Vegetation Management Policy, and Right-of-Way 

Encroachment Policy; and 

Local Jurisdictions. Town of Colma, cities of South San Francisco, San Bruno, and Millbrae, 

and San Mateo County. 

Sections 5.2 through 5.19 of Chapter 5, Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures, 

describe pertinent resource-specific plans (e.g., air quality management plans are discussed in 

Section 5.8, Air Quality; and plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are discussed in 

Section 5.9, Greenhouse Gas Emissions). 

4.2 Plans and Policies Relevant to the PPSU Project 

4.2.1 City and County of San Francisco Plans and Policies 

The City and County of San Francisco’s (CCSF) land use plans and policies are primarily 

applicable to projects within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of San Francisco, although 



4. Plans and Policies 

in some cases they may apply to projects outside of San Francisco. The SFPUC is guided by the 

San Francisco City Charter, and other City plans and policies, including: the San Francisco 

General Plan, which sets forth the comprehensive, long-term land use policy for San Francisco; 

the San Francisco Accountable Planning Initiative, which serves as the basis for resolving 

inconsistencies in the San Francisco General Plan; and the San Francisco Sustainability Plan, 

which addresses the long-term sustainability 1 of the City. 

The SFPUC has adopted various plans and policies that further direct its activities, including the 

Water Enterprise Environmental Stewardship Policy, Right-of-Way Integrated Vegetation 

Management Policy, and Right-of-Way Encroachment Policy. 

4.2.1.1 Extraterritorial Lands 

The CCSF has authority (San Francisco City Charter, Section 4.112) over the management, use, 

and control of land it owns outside of the City, subject to SFPUC’s exclusive charge of the 

construction, management, use, and control of City water supplies and utilities (San Francisco 

Charter, Section 8B.121). Accordingly, the CCSF gives consideration to its own plans and policies 

on its extraterritorial lands, when applicable. 

Under the provisions of California Government Code Section 53090 et seq., the SFPUC receives 

intergovernmental immunity from the planning and building ordinances of other cities and 

counties. The SFPUC, however, seeks to work cooperatively with local jurisdictions where CCSFowned 

facilities are sited outside of San Francisco, and to avoid conflicts with local land use plans 

and building and zoning codes, where possible. Also, the SFPUC is required under Government 

Code Section 65402(b) to inform local governments of its plans to construct projects or acquire or 

dispose of its extraterritorial property. The local governments have a 40-day review period to 

determine project consistency with their general plans. Under this requirement, the cities’ or 

counties’ determinations of consistency are advisory to the SFPUC rather than binding. 

4.2.1.2 San Francisco General Plan 

The San Francisco General Plan (CCSF, 2009) sets forth the comprehensive, long-term land use 

policy for San Francisco. One of the basic goals of the general plan is “coordination of the growth 

and development of the City with the growth and development of adjoining cities and counties 

and of the San Francisco Bay Region.” The general plan consists of ten issue-oriented plan 

elements: Air Quality, Arts, Commerce and Industry, Community Facilities, Community Safety, 

Environmental Protection, Housing, Recreation and Open Space, Transportation, and Urban 

Design. The plan elements that may be relevant to the project are briefly described below. 

Air Quality Element – This element promotes the goal of clean air planning through objectives 

and policies aimed at adhering to air quality regulations. 

Commerce and Industry Element – This element serves as a guide for decisions related to 

economic growth and change in San Francisco. The three goals of the element are: continued 

1 

Sustainability or sustainable development can be defined as development that meets the needs of the 

present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. 




economic vitality; social equity with respect to employment opportunities; and environmental 

quality. These goals address general citywide objectives, as well as objectives for each of the 

major sectors of San Francisco’s economy. 

Community Safety Element – This element addresses the potential for geologic, structural, and 

nonstructural hazards to affect City-owned structures and critical infrastructure. The goal of this 

element is to protect human life and property from hazards. 

Environmental Protection Element – This element addresses the impact of urbanization on the 

natural environment. The element promotes the protection of plant and animal life and 

freshwater sources, and reflects San Francisco’s responsibility to provide a permanent, clean 

water supply to meet present and future needs, and to maintain an adequate water-distribution 

system. 

Urban Design Element – This element promotes the preservation of landmarks and structures 

with notable historic, architectural, or aesthetic value, and seeks to balance development with its 

site’s natural environmental and visual features. 

4.2.1.3 San Francisco Accountable Planning Initiative 

In November 1986, the voters of San Francisco approved Proposition M, the Accountable 

Planning Initiative, which added Section 101.1 to the City Planning Code to establish the 

following eight priority policies as a preamble to the San Francisco General Plan (CCSF, 1986). 

The priority policies serve as the basis upon which inconsistencies in the general plan are to be 

resolved. Of the eight priority policies listed below, only the sixth policy is relevant to the 

proposed project: 

1. That existing neighborhood-serving retail uses shall be preserved and enhanced, and future 

opportunities for resident employment in, and ownership of, such businesses enhanced; 

2. That existing housing and neighborhood character shall be conserved and protected in order 

to preserve the cultural and economic diversity of our neighborhoods; 

3. That the City’s supply of affordable housing be preserved and enhanced; 

4. That commuter traffic shall not impede San Francisco Municipal Railway transit service or 

overburden our streets or neighborhood parking; 

5. That a diverse economic base shall be maintained by protecting our industrial and service 

sectors from displacement due to commercial office development, and that future 

opportunities for resident employment and ownership in these sectors be enhanced; 

6. That the City achieves the greatest possible preparedness to protect against injury and loss of 

life in an earthquake; 

7. That landmarks and historic buildings be preserved; and 

8. That our parks and open space and their access to sunlight and vistas shall be protected from 

development. 




4.2.1.4 San Francisco Sustainability Plan 

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors endorsed the San Francisco Sustainability Plan in 1997 

(CCSF, 1997), but has not committed the CCSF to perform the actions addressed in the plan. The 

plan serves as a blueprint for sustainability, with many of its individual proposals requiring 

further development and public comment. The underlying goals of the plan are to maintain the 

physical resources and systems that support life in San Francisco, and to create a social structure 

that will allow such maintenance. The plan is divided into fifteen topic areas, ten that address 

specific environmental issues (air quality; biodiversity; energy, climate change, and ozone 

depletion; food and agriculture; hazardous materials; human health; parks, open spaces and 

streetscapes; solid waste; transportation; and water and wastewater), and five that are broader in 

scope and cover many issues (economy and economic development; environmental justice; 

municipal expenditures; public information and education; and risk management). The topic 

“water” includes goals addressing water reuse, water quality, water supply, groundwater 

supply, and infrastructure. Each topic area in the plan contains a set of indicators to be used over 

time in determining whether San Francisco is moving in a sustainable direction in that particular 

area. 

4.2.2 SFPUC Plans and Policies 

4.2.2.1 Water Enterprise Environmental Stewardship Policy 

Adopted in June 2006, the Water Enterprise Environmental Stewardship Policy established the 

long-term management direction for CCSF-owned lands and natural resources affected by 

operation of the SFPUC water system within the Tuolumne River, Alameda Creek, and Peninsula 

watersheds (SFPUC, 2006). It also addresses rights-of-way (ROWs) and properties in urban 

surroundings under SFPUC management. The policy includes the following: 

 

 

 

The SFPUC will proactively manage the watersheds under its responsibility in a manner that 

maintains the integrity of the natural resources, restores habitats for native species, and 

enhances ecosystem function. 

To the maximum extent practicable, the SFPUC will ensure that all operations of the SFPUC 

water system (including water diversion, storage, and transport); construction and 

maintenance of infrastructure; land management policies and practices; purchase and sale of 

watershed lands; and lease agreements for watershed lands protect and restore native species 

and the ecosystems that support them. 

ROWs and properties in urban surroundings under SFPUC management will be managed in 

a manner that protects and restores habitat value where available, and encourages 

community participation in decisions that significantly interrupt or alter current land use in 

these parcels. 

The Environmental Stewardship Policy calls for the update of the Watershed and Environmental 

Improvement Program, as well as specific integration of this policy into individual infrastructure 

projects. 




4.2.2.2 SFPUC Strategic Sustainability Plan 

SFPUC’s Strategic Sustainability Plan (SFPUC, 2011) provides a system for planning, managing, 

and evaluating SFPUC-wide performance that takes into account the long-term economic, 

environmental, and social impacts of business activities. 

The five long-term goals of the plan are to promote a green and sustainable city; provide highquality 

services; engage SFPUC’s public and invest in its communities; plan for the future; and 

invest in SFPUC’s people. 

The applicable objectives pertaining to the proposed project are to optimize maintenance for 

water, wastewater, and power assets (objective j); improve capital facilities through construction 

(objective k); and advance security, emergency planning and response (objective r). 

4.2.2.3 Right-of-Way Integrated Vegetation Management Policy 

The SFPUC adopted its Right-of-Way Integrated Vegetation Management Policy in February 

2007 to manage vegetation that poses a threat or hazard to the system’s operation, maintenance, 

and infrastructure. The roots of large woody vegetation can damage transmission pipelines by 

causing corrosion of the outer easements. Trees and other vegetation directly adjacent to 

pipelines can also make emergency and annual maintenance difficult, hazardous, and expensive, 

and can increase concerns for public safety. Fire danger within the SFPUC ROWs is also a 

concern. The SFPUC is required to comply with local fire ordinances, which require that existing 

vegetation be identified, reduced, and managed to prevent potential disruption to fire-protection 

services. One of the other objectives of this plan is to reduce and eliminate as much as practicable 

the use of herbicides on vegetation within the ROW. Specific elements of the ROW Integrated 

Vegetation Management Plan address the management and removal of vegetation, annual 

grasses, and weeds within the SFPUC ROW, and the management and removal of vegetation and 

trees on land leased or permitted by the SFPUC (SFPUC, 2007a). 

4.2.2.4 Right-of-Way Encroachment Policy 

The SFPUC approved a revised ROW Encroachment Policy in February 2007 that clarifies how it 

will handle encroachments into its ROWs (SFPUC, 2007b). The policy provides overall guidance 

and procedures for prioritizing and implementing encroachment removal efforts. Specifically, 

removal efforts will focus on encroachments that would: 

 

 

 

 

 

Endanger water, sewer, or electrical transmission lines and appurtenances; 

Impair access to facilities for emergency repair, maintenance, or operational activity; 

Be detrimental to the efficient and effective maintenance of limited vegetation in the ROW, in 

accordance with the ROW Integrated Vegetation Management Plan described above; 

Cause an obstruction to the inspection and monitoring or equipment or the collection of land 

survey, corrosion control, and water quality data; or 

Increase liability of the SFPUC. 




4.2.3 Other Land Use Plans and Policies 

This section describes the local general plans adopted by other jurisdictions that would be 

applicable to the project. 

The proposed project is located in the Town of Colma and cities of South San Francisco, San 

Bruno, and Millbrae, and in unincorporated San Mateo County. Although the SFPUC is not 

legally bound to the land use plans and policies of other jurisdictions, non-CCSF land use plans 

and policies are discussed in this section to the extent that they provide pertinent planning 

information with respect to evaluating the project under CEQA. For example, this EIR addresses 

aspects of compatibility with local land use planning if the project would: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., 

conflict with policies promoting bus turnouts or bicycle racks), or would cause a substantial 

increase in transit demand that cannot be accommodated by existing or proposed transit 

capacity or alternative travel modes (analyzed in Section 5.6, Transportation and Circulation); 

Expose people to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the local 

general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies (analyzed in 

Section 5.7 Noise); 

For a project located within an area covered by an airport land use plan (or within 2 miles of 

a public airport or public use airport where such a plan has not been adopted), expose people 

residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels (analyzed in Section 5.7, 

Noise); 

Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a treepreservation 

policy or ordinance (analyzed in Section 5.14, Biological Resources); 

Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community 

conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan 

(analyzed in Section 5.14, Biological Resources); or 

Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site 

delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan (analyzed in 

Section 5.15, Geology and Soils). 

4.2.3.1 San Mateo County 

The South San Francisco site is located at the intersection of West Orange Avenue and 

Westborough Boulevard (see Figure 3-3 in Chapter 3, Project Description), and is partially in 

unincorporated San Mateo County and partially in the City of South San Francisco; the portion of 

the project site that is south of Westborough Boulevard is located in unincorporated San Mateo 

County. The San Mateo County General Plan (San Mateo County, 1986) governs land use 

planning and development in unincorporated San Mateo County. 




The General Plan promotes the conservation, enhancement, protection, maintenance, and 

managed use of the county’s vegetative, water, fish, and wildlife resources, and seeks to balance 

open space, rural uses, and urban development within the county. 

The General Plan encourages replacement of vegetation and trees removed during construction, 

as well as the placement of utilities underground to decrease visual impacts. The General Plan 

also recognizes the need to develop critical public facilities, such as water supply facilities, that 

can minimize service interruptions during emergencies. Policies pertaining to historical and 

archaeological resources state that construction should be temporarily suspended in the event of 

a discovery, and natural hazards policies address the protection of public utilities from the effects 

of natural disasters. The General Plan addresses the use of noise-reduction techniques during 

construction. It also recognizes SFPUC watershed lands as unique areas that should be protected 

for open space, wildlife, water supply, and recreational resources. Minimizing traffic congestion 

on recreational access routes is also addressed. Specific policies that pertain to the proposed 

project are listed, where relevant, in Chapter 5, Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation 

Measures. 

4.2.3.2 Town of Colma 

The Colma site is located west of El Camino Real and south of Serramonte Boulevard (see 

Figure 3-2 in Chapter 3, Project Description) in Colma. The Town of Colma General Plan (Town 

of Colma, 1999) provides a comprehensive, long-term plan for the development of the Town and 

addresses circulation, open space, conservation, housing, noise, open space, conservation, and 

safety within the Town. The General Plan is intended to be used as the principal policy document 

guiding development matters. The community goals are aimed at sustaining economic, 

environmental, and social attributes of the Town. Emphasis is placed on the important greenbelt 

theme of Colma, enhancing its residential environment, and promoting its status as a regional 

center for cemeteries and commerce. Specific policies that pertain to the proposed project are 

listed, where relevant, in Chapter 5, Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures. 

4.2.3.3 City of South San Francisco 

The South San Francisco site is located at the intersection of West Orange Avenue and 

Westborough Boulevard (see Figure 3-3 in Chapter 3, Project Description) in South San Francisco; 

also, as described above, a portion of the site is located in unincorporated San Mateo County. The 

City of South San Francisco General Plan (City of South San Francisco, 2009) outlines long-range 

physical and economic development and resource conservation that reflect the aspirations of the 

community and provides strategies and specific implementing actions that would accomplish 

these goals. It establishes a basis for determining whether specific development proposals and 

public project are in consistent with the City’s policies and standards. The General Plan also 

provides guidance to help enhance the character of the community, preserve and enhance critical 

environmental resources, and minimize hazards. The plan addresses issues such as 

neighborhood-oriented development; economic development and diversification; increased 

connectivity and accessibility, redevelopment of older industrial areas; land use/transportation 

correlation and promotion of transit; enhancement of community character; and sustainability. 

Specific policies that pertain to the proposed project are listed, where relevant, in Chapter 5, 

Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures. 




4.2.3.4 City of San Bruno General Plan 

There are two project sites located in the City of San Bruno: San Bruno North site located at 

Interstate 280 and San Bruno Avenue West (see Figure 3-4 in Chapter 3, Project Description), and 

San Bruno South located near Whitman Way and Shelter Creek Lane (see Figure 3-5 in Chapter 3, 

Project Description). The City of San Bruno General Plan (City of San Bruno, 2008) reflects the 

long-range vision for physical and economic development in the City. The plan promotes 

balanced development; fosters development of transit-supportive uses adjacent to the new and 

planned public transit stations; includes policies for expanding the affordable housing stock and 

promoting mixed-use development; and outlines strategies for conserving established 

neighborhoods, revitalizing aging commercial and industrial areas, and improving bicycle and 

pedestrian connections between residences, activity centers, and transit stations. The City of San 

Bruno General Plan identifies specific implementing policies addressing the development and 

redevelopment of land, provision of economic development, improvement of the circulation and 

transportation system, preservation of parks and open spaces, conservation of existing natural 

resources, control of noise and protection of life and property from hazards, provision of 

adequate public services, facilities and infrastructure, and provision of housing for current and 

future residents. Specific policies that pertain to the proposed project are listed, where relevant, 

in Chapter 5, Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures. 

4.2.3.5 City of Millbrae General Plan 

The Millbrae site is located near the intersection of Ridgewood Drive and Banbury Lane (see 

Figure 3-6 in Chapter 3, Project Description) in the City of Millbrae. The City of Millbrae General 

Plan (City of Millbrae, 1998) reflects the long range vision for physical development in the City. 

The plan addresses issues related to sustaining the City of Millbrae’s quality of life, including 

protecting residential neighborhoods and environmental resources; balancing future 

development with the provision of adequate services, facilities and infrastructure; collaborating 

on regional planning efforts; meeting affordable housing needs; and providing for economic 

development. The City of Millbrae General Plan identifies policies and programs addressing the 

development and redevelopment of land, preservation of parks and open spaces, provision of 

housing for current and future residents, conservation of natural resources, improvement of the 

circulation and transportation system, control of noise and protection of life and property from 

hazards. Specific policies that pertain to the proposed project are listed, where relevant, in 

Chapter 5, Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures. 

4.3 Plan Consistency Evaluation 

4.3.1 Approach to Analysis 

The evaluation of plan consistency is based on the applicability of relevant land use plans and 

policies described above to the PPSU project. An evaluation was undertaken to determine 

whether any inconsistencies existed between the project and these plans and policies, in 

accordance with Section 15125(d) of the CEQA Guidelines. However, because the policy 

language found in a land use plan is susceptible to varying interpretations, it is often difficult to 

determine whether a project is consistent or inconsistent with such policies. Furthermore, because 




land use plans often contain numerous policies emphasizing differing legislative goals, a project 

may be consistent with the general plan, taken as a whole, even though it may appear to be 

inconsistent with specific policies within the plan. The board or commission that enacted the plan 

or policy generally determines the meaning of such policies; these interpretations prevail if they 

are “reasonable,” even though other reasonable interpretations may also exist. In light of these 

considerations, the consistency evaluation in this EIR is intended to advise decision-makers as to 

whether the project is consistent with applicable land use plans and policies. Direct and indirect 

physical impacts resulting from project implementation are addressed in the appropriate 

technical sections of the EIR. 

As stated above, the San Francisco General Plan and San Francisco Sustainability Plan are 

primarily applicable to projects located in San Francisco; however, they may also be applicable to 

projects on CCSF extraterritorial lands. 

4.3.2 Consistency with San Francisco Plans and Policies 

Consistency of the PPSU with the plans and policies of San Francisco, the SFPUC, and local 

jurisdictions is described below. 

4.3.2.1 San Francisco General Plan 

The San Francisco General Plan sets forth the CCSF’s comprehensive, long-term land use policy 

and, therefore, is primarily applicable to projects within its jurisdictional boundaries. The 

proposed project, which is located outside the CCSF boundaries, would improve the seismic 

reliability of transmission pipelines between the Harry Tracy Water Treatment Plant and the 

Capuchino, Baden, and San Pedro Valve Lots in the event of a major earthquake on the San 

Andreas Fault. The proposed project consists of seismic upgrades to three SFPUC water 

transmission pipelines—San Andreas Pipeline No. 2, San Andreas Pipeline No. 3, and Sunset 

Supply Branch Pipeline—at five locations on the San Francisco Peninsula. The upgrades would 

improve segments of pipelines to increase reliability during potential seismic events. 

Consistent with the General Plan’s air quality objectives, the proposed project would implement 

dust control and other emission reducing measures to reduce construction air quality impacts 

and adhere to air quality regulations. The project would contribute to the economic vitality of San 

Francisco in support of the General Plan’s goals by ensuring a continued reliable water supply. 

By seismically retrofitting the city’s critical infrastructure, the project would support General Plan 

goals pertaining to the protection of human life and protecting property from hazards. The 

proposed project would be consistent with policies pertaining to providing a clean water supply 

and maintaining an adequate water distribution system. Therefore, the project would support the 

health and safety of SFPUC water customers within the City and within the region. Overall, the 

project would be consistent with the spirit and intent of the San Francisco General Plan. 

The compatibility of the project with San Francisco General Plan policies that do not relate to 

physical environmental issues will be considered by decision-makers as part of their decision 

whether to approve or disapprove the proposed project. Any potential conflicts identified as part 

of the process would not alter the physical environmental effects of the proposed project. 




4.3.2.2 San Francisco Accountable Planning Initiative 

Of the eight Priority Policies, Policy 6 (concerning earthquake preparedness) is relevant to the 

proposed project. The other policies are not relevant because the project: would be constructed 

outside of San Francisco and would not affect San Francisco neighborhoods; would not affect or 

create the need for affordable housing; would not result in commuter traffic; would not result in 

commercial office development or employment; would not affect landmarks or historic buildings; 

and would not affect open space. 

 

Maximization of earthquake preparedness: One of the primary goals of the proposed project 

is to provide seismic improvements to existing facilities, which would in turn improve the 

seismic reliability of the SFPUC water supply system. 

The proposed project would be consistent with Policy 6 as it would result in seismic upgrades to 

the water transmission system and protect against losses in an earthquake. Therefore, on the 

whole, the proposed project would be consistent with the San Francisco Priority Policies. 

4.3.2.3 San Francisco Sustainability Plan 

The San Francisco Sustainability Plan was developed for the purpose of addressing San 

Francisco’s long-term environmental sustainability. The proposed project would increase the 

overall reliability of the regional water system for SFPUC water users and be consistent with 

goals to maintain physical resources. The proposed project would also be consistent with goals 

related to ensuring an adequate water supply system. 

4.3.3 Consistency with SFPUC Plans and Policies 

4.3.3.1 Water Enterprise Environmental Stewardship Policy 

The implementation strategies of the Water Enterprise Environmental Stewardship Policy 

specifically require the integration of the policy into individual WSIP facility improvement 

projects such as the PPSU project. As discussed in Sections 5.14, Biological Resources, and 5.16, 

Hydrology and Water Quality, significant impacts on natural resources, habitats, or ecosystems 

could be mitigated to a less-than-significant level through mitigation measures identified in this 

EIR. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the underlying goals of the Water 

Enterprise Environmental Stewardship Policy. 

4.3.3.2 SFPUC Strategic Sustainability Plan 

The proposed project would improve the reliability of transmission pipelines between Harry 

Tracy Water Treatment Plant and the Capuchino, Baden, and San Pedro Valve Lots in the event 

of a major earthquake on the San Andreas Fault, which would be consistent with Strategic 

Sustainability Plan objectives of optimizing maintenance for water (objective j) and improving 

capital facilities through construction (objective k). By optimizing maintenance of water 

infrastructure and improving existing capital facilities (the pipelines), the project would ensure 

that, in the event of an emergency, transmission pipelines would be able to convey water to 

communities. Additionally, the seismic upgrade of the PPSU project constitutes advanced 




preparation for emergencies; it would be consistent with the objectives of the Strategic 

Sustainability Plan, which call for advanced security, emergency planning, and response 

(objective r). Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with this plan. 

4.3.3.3 Right-of-Way Integrated Vegetation Management Policy 

Part of the overall goal of the Right-of-Way Integrated Vegetation Management Policy is to 

manage vegetation that poses a threat or hazard to the regional water system’s operation, 

maintenance, and infrastructure. After project construction, topsoil would be replaced in 

disturbed areas and would be re-vegetated with native plant seed mix. While some tree removal 

could be required at most sites, more extensive tree removal efforts would occur at the South San 

Francisco and Millbrae sites to allow access to the pipeline. In accordance with the SFPUC’s 

Right-of-Way Integrated Vegetation Management Policy, trees generally would not be replanted 

along the pipeline, because their roots could damage the pipeline. Vegetation would be 

monitored for up to a year to ensure it has become established. Therefore, the proposed project 

would be consistent with this policy. 

4.3.3.4 Right-of-Way Encroachment Policy 

The Right-of-Way Encroachment Policy provides guidance on how encroachment removal efforts 

should be handled. Site mobilization and preparation of the proposed project would include the 

preparation of the site for excavation including removal of existing structures, pavement, and 

vegetation. Existing encroachments on SFPUC property would be removed prior to construction. 

Where construction activities would require removal of improvements on private property over 

which the SFPUC has a ROW pursuant to an easement, the removal and reinstallation of those 

improvements after construction would be undertaken in accordance with the terms of the 

easement. Encroachments and/or improvements include small structures, fences, and 

landscaping. Survey work and potholing would be completed first to precisely locate the pipeline 

and other underground utilities. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the 

Right-of-Way Encroachment Policy. 

4.3.4 Consistency with Other Land Use Plans and Policies 

As described above, the SFPUC is not legally bound by the land use policies of other local 

governments. Determinations of project consistency with local general plans would be made by 

the pertinent land use jurisdictions following preparation of this EIR, and through notification by 

the SFPUC pursuant to State law. The local jurisdictions in which the PPSU project facilities 

would be located are primarily built out, established communities. Current general plans (or 

proposed general plan updates) of these jurisdictions generally seek to preserve the existing 

community character, protect natural resources and unique physical features, protect the health 

and safety of residents, and support appropriate levels of economic growth. 

The intent of general plans is to preserve and improve the quality of life for citizens and to 

consider growth in a manner that appropriately reflects the community’s values. An adequate, 

sanitary, and reliable water supply is a fundamental public service requirement to accomplish 

these goals. Each of the cities and counties in which the proposed project would be located 

receive all or part of their water supply from the SFPUC. 




As described above, the general plans of the jurisdictions generally include policies that address 

environmental resources, including locating utilities to avoid or minimize damage from seismic 

and geologic hazards; protecting sensitive wildlife habitats and plants; implementing erosion 

control measures and stormwater quality controls; locating utility lines underground to minimize 

visual impacts; conserving and protecting archaeological and historic resources; implementing 

dust and exhaust control measures during construction; implementing a noise-control plan that 

includes source controls, barriers, and limiting hours of construction to the extent feasible to 

minimize noise impacts on surrounding uses; and implementing a traffic control plan to reduce 

impacts on traffic flows as well as on emergency services, bicycles, and pedestrians. In addition, 

several general plans include policies specifically relate to the protection of SFPUC water supply 

and watershed lands and call for coordination with the SFPUC to ensure a reliable source of 

water. All of these policies are addressed where relevant in Chapter 5, Environmental Setting, 

Impacts and Mitigation Measures, and in Chapter 6, Section 6.1, Growth Inducement. 

The proposed project would be consistent with the objectives and policies of local land use plans 

and policies through implementation of the mitigation measures included in Sections 5.7, Noise; 

and 5.14, Biological Resources; and 5.17, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. With 

implementation of these measures, on the whole, the proposed project would mitigate impacts to 

the extent feasible and be consistent with environmental protection policies. 

Overall the project would conform to the broader goals of their respective general plans to 

maintain and improve the quality of life of the local population through increasing water supply 

reliability, meeting water supply needs, and maintaining high water supply quality. 


City of Millbrae, 1998. General Plan. Adopted November 24, 1998. 

City of San Bruno, 2009. City of San Bruno General Plan. Adopted March 24. 

City of South San Francisco, 2009. General Plan. 

San Mateo County, 1986. County of San Mateo General Plan. Adopted November 1986. 

SF Planning (City and County of San Francisco, San Francisco Planning Department), 1986. 

Accountable Planning Initiative, Planning Code Section 101.1. November. 


Environmental Planning, The Sustainability Plan for the City of San Francisco. 

SF Planning (City and County of San Francisco, San Francisco Planning Department), 2009. San 

Francisco General Plan, 1988, as amended through 2009. 

SFPUC (San Francisco Public Utilities Commission), 2006. SFPUC Final Water Enterprise 

Environmental Stewardship Policy. June 27. 

SFPUC (San Francisco Public Utilities Commission), 2007a. Right-of-Way Integrated Vegetation 





SFPUC (San Francisco Public Utilities Commission), 2007b. Right-of-Way Encroachment Policy, 

2007. 

SFPUC (San Francisco Public Utilities Commission), 2011. Strategic Sustainability Plan, March. 

Town of Colma, 1999. Colma General Plan. Adopted June 1999. 




5. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 

CHAPTER 5 

 

 

5.1 Overview 

This chapter provides a project-level impact analysis of the physical environmental effects of 

implementing the Peninsula Pipelines Seismic Upgrade (PPSU) project. This chapter describes the 

environmental setting, assesses impacts, and identifies mitigation measures for significant impacts. 

5.1.1 Scope of Analysis 

This chapter is organized by environmental resource topic, as follows, with references included 

within each section: 

Sections 

5.1 Overview 

5.2 Land Use and Land Use Planning 

5.3 Aesthetics 

5.4 Population and Housing 

5.5 Cultural and Paleontological Resources 

5.6 Transportation and Circulation 

5.7 Noise 

5.8 Air Quality 

5.9 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

5.10 Wind and Shadow 

5.11 Recreation 

5.12 Utilities and Service Systems 

5.13 Public Services 

5.14 Biological Resources 

5.15 Geology and Soils 

5.16 Hydrology and Water Quality 

5.17 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 

5.18 Mineral and Energy Resources 

5.19 Agricultural and Forest Resources 

Each section of Chapter 5 contains the following elements, based on requirements of the 

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Chapter 31 of the City and County of San 

Francisco Administrative Code: 

 

 

Setting. This subsection presents a description of the existing physical environmental 

conditions in the vicinity of the project with respect to each resource topic at an appropriate 

level of detail to allow the reader to understand the impact analysis. 

Regulatory Framework. This subsection describes the relevant laws and regulations that 

apply to protecting the environmental resources within the proposed project area, and the 

governmental agencies responsible for enforcing those laws and regulations. 

SFPUC Peninsula Pipelines Seismic Upgrade 5.1-1 Environmental Planning Case No. 2011.0123E 



5.1 Overview 

 

 

Impacts and Mitigation Measures. This subsection evaluates the potential for the proposed 

project to adversely affect the physical environment described in the setting. Significance 

criteria for evaluating environmental impacts are defined at the beginning of each impact 

analysis section, followed by the Approach to Analysis, which describes how the significance 

criteria are applied in evaluating the PPSU project. Each impact analysis concludes with the 

impact significance, as described further in Section 5.1.2 below. This subsection also identifies 

mitigation measures for all of the impacts considered significant or potentially significant, 

consistent with the CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.4[a][1]), which state that an 

environmental impact report (EIR), “shall describe feasible measures which could minimize 

significant adverse impacts…” 

Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Measures. Cumulative impacts are analyzed at the end 

of each section in Chapter 5. The analysis describes the effects of the proposed project 

together with those of other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future projects proposed 

by the SFPUC and other entities. The analysis of cumulative impacts is based on the setting, 

regulatory framework, and significance criteria that is used for the analysis of direct project 

impacts. If it is determined that the cumulative projects would result in a significant 

cumulative impact, then the PPSU project’s level of contribution to cumulative impacts is 

described (prior to implementation of any project-specific mitigation measures identified for 

direct project impacts). If the PPSU project would have a cumulatively considerable 

contribution to a significant cumulative impact, then mitigation measures are identified, 

where feasible, to reduce the PPSU project’s contribution. If the PPSU project’s contribution 

to cumulative impacts would not be cumulatively considerable (with mitigation, if 

appropriate), the project’s cumulative impacts would be less than significant. 

5.1.2 Significance Determinations 

The significance criteria used in this EIR are based on the San Francisco Planning Department’s 

Environmental Planning Division (formerly Major Environmental Analysis Division) guidance 

regarding the thresholds of significance used to assess the severity of the environmental impacts 

of the proposed project. The San Francisco Planning Department’s guidance is based on CEQA 

Guidelines Appendix G, with some modifications. The significance criteria used to analyze the 

various environmental resource topics are presented in each section of Chapter 5 before the 

discussion of impacts. If an impact is described as “potentially significant,” then there is a 

potential for the impact to occur but there is either not enough project information or site-specific 

information to determine definitively whether it qualifies under the significance criteria as 

significant. An impact identified as “potentially significant” is treated the same as significant 

impacts in this EIR. The categories used to designate impact significance are: 

 

 

No Impact (NI). An impact is considered not applicable (no impact) if there is no potential 

for impacts, or the environmental resource does not occur within the project area or the area 

of potential effect. For example, there would be no impacts related to tree removal if there is 

no tree removal proposed at a project site. 

Less-than-Significant impact, no mitigation required (LS). This determination applies if 

there is a potential for a limited impact that would not qualify as a significant impact under 

the significance criteria. 




5.1 Overview 

 

 

 

 

Less-than-Significant impact with Mitigation (LSM). This determination applies if the 

project would result in an adverse effect that meets the significance criteria, but feasible 

mitigation is available that would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. 

Significant impact (S). This determination applies if the project would result in a substantial, 

or potentially substantial, adverse change that meets the significance criteria, before 

mitigation. 

Significant and Unavoidable impact for which feasible mitigation is not available (SU). 

This determination applies if the project would result in an adverse effect that meets the 

significance criteria, but for which there appears to be no feasible mitigation available to 

reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, the impact would be significant 

and unavoidable. 

Significant and Unavoidable impact with implementation of feasible Mitigation (SUM). 

This determination applies if it is certain that the project would result in an adverse effect 

that meets the significance criteria and mitigation is available to lessen the impact, but the 

residual effect after implementation of the measure would remain significant. Therefore, the 

impact is significant and unavoidable with mitigation. 

A table at the beginning of the impact discussion in each section summarizes the potential 

impacts and indicates the level of impact significance. For each impact statement, the overall 

impact conclusion represents the worst case of all project sites, while the impact analysis 

describes the impacts that would occur at each site. The analysis also specifies the sites at which 

mitigation is required, if any. Environmental impacts are numbered throughout this EIR, using 

an abbreviation for the resource topic, followed by sequentially numbered impacts. Mitigation 

measures are numbered to correspond with the impact numbers; for example, Mitigation 

Measure M-LU-1 addresses Impact LU-1. 

5.1.3 Cumulative Impacts 

Cumulative impacts, as defined in Section 15355 of the CEQA Guidelines, refer to two or more 

individual effects that, when taken together, are “considerable” or that compound or increase 

other environmental impacts. A cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the 

environment that would result from the incremental impact of the project when added to those of 

other closely related past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future projects. Pertinent guidance 

for cumulative impact analysis is provided in Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines: 

 

 

 

An EIR shall discuss cumulative impacts of a project when the project’s incremental effect is 

“cumulatively considerable” (i.e., the incremental effects of an individual project are 

considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past, current, and probable future 

projects, including those outside the control of the agency, if necessary). 

An EIR should not discuss impacts that do not result in part from the project evaluated in the EIR. 

A project’s contribution is less than cumulatively considerable, and thus not significant, if the 

project is required to implement or fund its fair share of a mitigation measure or measures 

designed to alleviate the cumulative impact. 




5.1 Overview 

 

 

The discussion of impact severity and likelihood of occurrence need not be as detailed as for 

effects attributable to the project alone. 

The focus of analysis should be on the cumulative impact to which the identified other 

projects contribute, rather than on attributes of the other projects that do not contribute to the 

cumulative impact. 

The cumulative impact analysis for each individual resource topic is described in each subsection 

of this chapter, immediately following the description of direct project impacts and identified 

mitigation measures. A summary of all cumulative impacts is provided in Chapter 6, Other 

CEQA Issues, Section 6.2. 

5.1.3.1 Approach to Cumulative Impact Analysis 

Two approaches to a cumulative impact analysis are discussed in CEQA Guidelines 

Section 15130(b) (1): (a) the analysis can be based on a list of past, present, and probable future 

projects producing related or cumulative impacts, or (b) a summary of projections contained in a 

general plan or related planning document or in an adopted or certified environmental document 

that described or evaluated regional or area-wide conditions contributing to the cumulative 

impact can be used to determine cumulative impacts. For the purpose of this EIR, the analysis 

employs the list-based approach. The following factors were used to determine an appropriate 

list of projects to be considered in this cumulative analysis: 

 

 

 

Similar Environmental Impacts – A relevant project would contribute to effects on resources 

also affected by the PPSU project. A relevant future project is defined as one that is 

“reasonably foreseeable,” such as a proposed project that has approved funding or for which 

an application has been filed with the approving agency. 

Geographic Scope and Location – A relevant project is located within the defined 

geographic scope for the cumulative effect. 

Timing and Duration of Implementation – Effects associated with activities for a relevant 

project (e.g., short-term construction or demolition, or long-term operations) would likely 

coincide in timing with the effects of the PPSU project. 

Similar Environmental Impacts 

Projects that are relevant to the cumulative analysis include those that could contribute 

incremental effects on the same environmental resources and would have environmental impacts 

similar to those discussed in this EIR. The cumulative impact discussions in Sections 5.2 

through 5.19 of this chapter analyze the cumulative impacts that could occur when the impacts of 

the PPSU project are considered in combination with the impacts of other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future projects, which are generally subject to independent environmental 

review and consideration by the approving agencies. Consequently, it is possible that some of the 

reasonably foreseeable future projects will not be approved or will be modified prior to approval 

(e.g. as a result of the CEQA alternatives analysis process or permitting requirements). For the 

purpose of assessing worst-case cumulative impacts, however, the cumulative impact analysis is 




5.1 Overview 

premised on the approval and construction of all of the reasonably foreseeable projects identified 

in this analysis. 

Geographic Scope and Location 

The geographic scope of cumulative projects is dependent on the resource topic affected, and is 

specifically described for each resource topic in Sections 5.2. through 5.19. In general, the 

geographic scope includes the areas within and adjacent to the project area. However, for some 

resource topics the geographic scope can extend further, such as the regional roadway network 

or the regional air basin. 

Timing and Duration of Implementation 

Construction of the PPSU project would span approximately 12 months, between 2014 and 2015; 

the duration of construction activities at each site would range from 1 month to 9 months. For 

temporal impacts such as noise and traffic, cumulative effects from other projects are considered 

if the planned construction of those projects could overlap with PPSU project construction, or 

could occur immediately prior to or after construction of the PPSU project, and would affect the 

same environmental resources. Cumulative effects related to operations, such as operational 

energy consumption, are also considered if PPSU project operations would affect the same 

resources as the operations of other projects and have the potential to occur within a similar 

timeframe. 

5.1.3.2 List of Relevant Projects 

Table 5.1-1 lists the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects and activities within and 

near the project area, and provides a brief description of the projects and their expected 

schedules. The table also identifies the areas of potential cumulative effects associated with each 

of the cumulative projects. Figure 5.1-1 shows the general location of the cumulative projects 

listed. The cumulative impact analysis is presented under each resource topic in the subsections 

that follow. A summary of all cumulative impacts is provided in Chapter 6, Other CEQA Issues, 

Section 6.2. The projects listed in Table 5.1-1 include projects proposed by the SFPUC and other 

parties that would potentially contribute to cumulative impacts when considered together with 

the PPSU project. 

The list of projects was developed through: review of online information from CEQAnet; review 

of available information on the websites of the jurisdictions in which the project sites are located; 

personal communications with the planning departments of these cities; review of City and 

County of San Francisco information regarding planned SFPUC projects; personal 

communications with SFPUC staff regarding the project schedules for planned projects in the 

PPSU project vicinity; review of other agency websites, including the California Department of 

Transportation and the Pacific Gas and Electric Company; and review of recent environmental 

documents for nearby projects. 

The initial list of projects was then narrowed to focus on planned and potential projects within 

the general vicinity of the PPSU project sites, including the project construction access routes, and 

on projects having tentative construction schedules that could overlap with construction of the 

PPSU project. 




Table 5.1-1 

Cumulative Project List 

Project 

Number Project Name Project Summary Location 

Estimated Construction 

Schedule 

Potential Cumulative Resource 

Impacts 

1 Regional 

Groundwater 

Storage and 

Recovery Project 

SFPUC proposes the Regional Groundwater 

Storage and Recovery Project to further the 

use of the South Westside Groundwater 

Basin as an underground storage reservoir, 

by storing water in the basin during wet 

periods for subsequent recapture during dry 

periods. This new dry-year water supply 

would be made available to the cities of Daly 

City and San Bruno, the California Water 

Company in its South San Francisco service 

area, and SFPUC wholesale water customers. 

The SFPUC has selected the 16 potential well 

facility sites it proposes to develop; three 

alternate sites are also evaluated and would 

be developed in the event one or more of the 

16 sites is not successful. The new 

groundwater well facilities as a whole would 

have an annual average pumping capacity of 

7.2 mgd, which is equivalent to 8,100 acre-feet 

per year, and a peak pumping capacity of 

8.3 mgd (Zhang, 2012). 

The Town of 

Colma; 

Peninsula cities 

including Daly 

City, South San 

Francisco, San 

Bruno, Millbrae; 

and 

unincorporated 


County 

Overall: June 2014 through 

May 2016; 

Colma: June 2014 to 

November 2015; 1 

South San Francisco: 

August 2014 to February 

2016 2 

(Illingworth and Rodkins, 

Inc., 2012) 

Land Use, Aesthetics, Cultural 

and Paleontological Resources, 

Transportation and Circulation, 

Noise, Utilities and Service 

Systems, Biological Resources, 

Hydrology and Water Quality, 

Hazards and Hazardous 

Materials 

2 599 Cedar 

Avenue (singlefamily 

homes) 

Proposal to construct 14 single-family 

homes with a new private access road. 

(City of San Bruno, 2011) 

599 Cedar 

Avenue, San 

Bruno 

Project initiation December 

2011. Timeline for 

completion unknown. 

Land Use, Cultural and 

Paleontological Resources, 









5.1 Overview 

Table 5.1-1 

Cumulative Project List (Continued) 

Project 


3 Parkside 

Intermediate 

School Classroom 

Buildings 

Replacement 

Demolition of three older existing 

classroom wings (21,186 square feet) to be 

replaced with two new earthquakeresistant 

classroom buildings 

(36,500 square feet). Several aged trees 

would be removed from the western part of 

the site, and the current landscaping would 

be replaced with new water-efficient and 

fire-resistant landscaping (CEQAnet, 2011). 

Donner Avenue 

and Niles 

Avenue, San 

Bruno 


Schedule 

Notice of Exemption 

February 2011; 

Construction schedule 

unknown. 


Impacts 




Biological Resources, Hydrology 

and Water Quality, Hazards and 

Hazardous Materials 

4 Harry Tracy 

Water Treatment 

Plant Long-Term 

Improvements 

Project 

The project entails improvements to water 

treatment processes to meet water quality 

and delivery reliability goals, seismic 

reliability improvements, and other 

improvements to the HTWTP such as 

pipeline distribution, access, and site 

improvements. The primary differences in 

treatment process resulting from the project 

would be changes to solids handling, 

whereby solids from the sludge holding 

tank would be transferred to a solids 

dewatering facility before being trucked off 

site, and to the treated water storage, which 

would occur in a single new tank north of 

the main plant site instead of two tanks 

southeast of the main plant (SF Planning, 

2011). 

2901 Crystal 

Springs Road, 

San Bruno (East 

of I-280) 

Completion date for 

HTWTP is March 2015 

(Roche, 2012). 







Hazards and Hazardous 

Materials 




5.1 Overview 

Table 5.1-1 

Cumulative Project List (Continued) 

Project 



Schedule 


Impacts 

5 Millbrae Safeway 

Store Replacement 

Project 

Demolition of the existing store and 

reconstruction of a new, podium style 

59,001-square-foot store that would be on 

the second floor, with 181 surface parking 

spaces beneath. The new store would have 

two loading docks at the south end of the 

property (CEQAnet, 2011). 

El Camino Real 

Between Taylor 

Boulevard and 

Silva Avenue, 

Millbrae 

Mitigated Negative 

Declaration published 

December 2010; 

Construction schedule 

unknown 




Biological Resources, Hydrology 

and Water Quality, Hazards and 


Sources: CEQAnet, 2011; City of San Bruno, 2011; Illingworth and Rodkins, Inc., 2012; Roche, 2012; SF Planning, 2011; Zhang, 2012. 

Notes: 

1 GSR well sites proposed at or within the vicinity of the PPSU Colma site are well sites 8 and 17 (alternate). 

2 GSR well sites proposed at or within the vicinity of the PPSU South San Francisco site are well sites 11, 12, and 19 (alternate). 

GSR = groundwater storage and recovery 

HTWTP = Harry Tracy Water Treatment Plant 

I-280 = Interstate 280 

mgd = million gallons per day 

PPSU = Peninsula Pipelines Seismic Upgrade 




COLMA SITE 

1 

!( 

!( 

1 

COLMA 


SAPL2 & SAPL3 

DALY CITY 

§¨¦280 

!( 


1 


!( 

!( 

1 

1 

SOUTH SAN 

FRANCISCO 

£¤ 101 

SOUTH SAN 

FRANCISCO 

SAN ANDREAS PIPELINE NO.2/SAPL2 & 



SAN BRUNO 

§¨¦380 


!( 

SAN BRUNO 

2 

vsa/ed U:\GIS\SFPUC_Peninsula_Pipeline\Projects\EIR\ERO_DEIR\Fig5_1_1_Cumulative_projects.mxd 2/7/2013 10:23:40 AM 

PACIFICA 

Cumulative Projects 

1. Regional Groundwater Storage and 

Recovery Project 

2. 599 Cedar Avenue (Single-family housing) 

3. Parkside Intermediate School 

Classroom Buildings Replacement 

4. Harry Tracy Water Treatment Plant 

Long-Term Improvement Project 

5. Millbrae Safeway Store Replacement Project 


Project Site 

!( Cumulative Projects 

Access Route to Project Site 

City Limits 


^_ Harry Tracy Water Treatment Plant 

NOTE: Locations for Regional Groundwater Storage and 

Recovery Project extend north and south beyond the extent of the map. 

^_ 

$ 

0 0.5 1 

Mile 

Source: USA Topo Maps (National Geographic Society, 2011); SFPUC 2011; Cumulative projects compiled by URS, 2012. 

4 

4 

!( 

!( !( 

3 

MILLBRAE SITE 

MILLBRAE 5 

!( 


CUMULATIVE PROJECTS 




FIGURE 5.1-1


5.1 Overview 

5.1.4 References 

CEQAnet, 2011. Official Website. Available online at: www.ceqanet.ca.gov/QueryForm.asp. 

Accessed December 2011. 

City of San Bruno, 2011. Current Development Projects. Official Website. Available online at: 

sanbruno.ca.gov/developments.html. Accessed December 2011. 

Illingworth and Rodkins, Inc., 2012. Final Air Quality Technical Report Regional Groundwater 

Storage and Recovery Project. Prepared for GHD. July 25. 

Roche, Anna, 2012. Email communication with URS. Environmental Project Manager, SFPUC. 

February 28. 

SF Planning (City and County of San Francisco, San Francisco Planning Department), 2011. Harry 

Tracy Water Treatment Plant Long-Term Improvements Project, Draft EIR. SCH No. 2008052106. 

March. 

Zhang, YinLan, 2012. Personal communication between YinLan Zhang, SFPUC Environmental 

Project Manager and Hannah Young, URS, regarding the Regional Groundwater Storage and 

Recovery Project. December 20. 





This section provides an overview of existing land use and land use planning conditions within 

the Peninsula Pipelines Seismic Upgrade (PPSU) project area, evaluates the potential impacts to 

land use that could result from implementation of the project, and identifies mitigation measures, 

as appropriate. For a description of applicable land use plans, please refer to Chapter 4, Plans and 

Policies. 

5.2.1 Setting 

Land uses in the vicinity of the five sites, and near the proposed common staging area, are 


5.2.1.1 Colma Site 

The Colma site is located in a mixed commercial area situated between Interstate 280 (I-280) and 

El Camino Real in the Town of Colma (see Figure 3-2 in Chapter 3, Project Description). The 

proposed construction zone would be predominantly within the San Francisco Public Utilities 

Commission’s (SFPUC) right-of-way (ROW), on unpaved, vacant land stretching between 

Serramonte Boulevard to Collins Avenue, just east of the Serra Shopping Center, behind Kohl’s 

department store. One staging area would be located in an auxiliary parking area behind Kohl’s 

department store, immediately adjacent to the existing ROW, and another would be located at 

the southern end of the construction zone. Access would be from I-280, via Serramonte Boulevard 

or Hickey Boulevard exits, continuing on Serramonte Boulevard, Collins Avenue, or Junipero 

Serra Boulevard. Access to the northern part of the proposed construction zone and staging area 

would be through Kohl’s Department Store parking lot, via Serramonte Boulevard. Staging areas 

south of the construction zone would be accessed from Collins Avenue. 

There is one single-family home in the vicinity of the Colma site, as well as the Home Sweet 

Home assisted-living facility. Commercial uses in the site vicinity include car dealerships, retail 

stores, auto repair shops, a car rental agency, a plumbing supply store, and a bank. In addition, 

numerous cemeteries are located in the area, including Cypress Lawn Memorial Cemetery to the 

south of the site, and the Greek Orthodox Memorial Park to the north of the site. The Colma 

Town Hall/Clerk’s office is located about 500 feet north of the proposed construction zone. 

5.2.1.2 South San Francisco Site 

The South San Francisco site is west of Camaritas Avenue and El Camino Real, in a 

predominantly residential area, with a mix of single-family and multi-family homes and 

community services. This site is located partially in the City of South San Francisco, and partially 

in unincorporated San Mateo County (see Figure 3-3 in Chapter 3, Project Description). 

Construction activities would occur predominantly in the SFPUC’s ROW between Arroyo Drive 

and West Orange Avenue. The construction zone extends under Westborough Boulevard, and 

along the northern edge of the California Golf Club of San Francisco, which lies in 

unincorporated San Mateo County, where the ROW separates the active play area of the golf 

course from a triangular, landscaped area at the intersection of Westborough Boulevard and West 





Orange Avenue. A portion of the site proposed to be used as a staging area would be located 

within the Pacific Market parking lot in the shopping center north of Camaritas Avenue. Access 

would be from I-280 via Westborough Boulevard exit. Access to the northern portion of the 

construction zone and staging area would be from Arroyo Drive, while access to the construction 

zone south of Westborough Boulevard would be from West Orange Avenue. The Pacific 

Supermarket parking lot would be accessed from Camaritas Avenue. 

Land uses closest to the site include the golf course, the Clubview Apartments, a dialysis 

laboratory, a liquor store, and a bank. The closest single-family residences are to the northwest of 

the site, located along Arroyo Drive. A South San Francisco public library branch lies about 

300 feet south of the site on Orange Avenue. 

5.2.1.3 San Bruno North Site 

The northernmost of the two proposed sites in the City of San Bruno is located on and adjacent to 

the SFPUC ROW, south of the Bayhill Shopping Center (see Figure 3-4 in Chapter 3, Project 

Description). The site is accessible from I-280 via the Sneath Lane/San Bruno Avenue West exit. 

Proposed construction activities would occur on the south side of San Bruno Avenue West, 

between the I-280 off-ramp and the immediately adjacent single family residential neighborhood. 

Construction activities would occur predominantly within the SFPUC ROW easement that 

extends between San Bruno Avenue West and the I-280 north off-ramp. The ROW extends over 

California Department of Transportation property and the rear yard of residences on Cedarwood 

Court (1840 and 1841). The closest residences would be homes on Cedarwood Court and Pepper 

Drive. Access would be from I-280 via the Sneath Lane/San Bruno Avenue West exit to San Bruno 

Avenue West. 

5.2.1.4 San Bruno South Site 

The San Bruno South site lies east of I-280 in a predominantly suburban residential area in the 

San Bruno hills, in the vicinity of Shelter Creek Lane and Whitman Way (see Figure 3-5 in 

Chapter 3, Project Description). This area has a mix of single-family and multi-family housing 

and institutional uses. The construction zone would be located within the SFPUC ROW, which 

extends along a ridge between a single family development and vacant open space on a hill 

overlooking I-280. At the north end, the construction zone is surrounded by multi-family housing 

developments, including the 1,296-unit Shelter Creek Condominium complex and the 48-unit 

Park Plaza Apartment complex at the intersection of Shelter Creek Lane and Whitman Way, and 

an apartment complex at 2001 Whitman Way. The construction zone would pass through a strip 

of mature vegetation that buffers the Shelter Creek condominiums from Whitman Way, 

extending beneath Whitman Way, then behind a row of single-family homes on the west side of 

Courtland Drive. The construction zone would terminate at the access road leading from 

Courtland Drive to the San Bruno Chinese Church. 

Across Courtland Drive from the church is a sports field complex associated with the adjacent 

former Crestmoor High School campus. Crestmoor High School was closed in 1980 due to 

declining enrollment in the San Mateo Union High School District. The site now serves as the 

home for Peninsula High School, a small continuing high school education program that aids 

students who need additional credits to earn their high school diplomas. Approximately 250 to 





270 students are enrolled for school year 2010 to 2011 (McManus, 2011). The school district also 

uses the complex for other programs such as special education programs (currently serving about 

30 students) and sports programs (especially for other schools in the district whose sports 

facilities may be undergoing renovations). The district also leases building space to Crayon 

College, a private daycare center that operates on weekdays year-round, and Central Peninsula 

Church that holds services in the theater on Sundays. The athletic fields immediately adjacent to 

the proposed staging area are actively used year-round for youth soccer games and other 

community recreation activities. In addition, basketball courts are located on a portion of the 

northern school parking lot, which is also used on Sundays for church parking (San Francisco 

Examiner, 2010; Carlisle, 2011; Russell, 2011). 

Proposed access routes include Shelter Creek Lane, Whitman Way, and Courtland Drive, which 

are the primary access streets serving this residential neighborhood, the church, the school, and 

the sports fields. At a meeting held with representatives of groups that use the Peninsula High 

School facilities, community members expressed concerns about speeding traffic, limited parking, 

and pedestrian safety issues in this area (Zhang, 2012). 

Staging areas are proposed in a portion of the north high school parking lot that is currently 

fenced off and used for maintenance and storage, and at the small auxiliary parking lot of the San 

Bruno Chinese Church. Another proposed staging area extending about 200 feet along the 

unpaved area directly east of Courtland Drive, between the north and south driveways of the San 

Bruno Chinese Church, is used for parking during soccer practices and/or games, and can 

accommodate about 15 to 20 vehicles; parking is not officially permitted at this location. 

5.2.1.5 Millbrae Site 

The Millbrae site is located in an open-space area that stretches through a single-family residential 

neighborhood known as the Meadows Tract that was developed in the late 1950s and 1960s, 

adjacent to the private Green Hills Country Club (see Figure 3-6 in Chapter 3, Project Description). 

The construction zone for the Millbrae site would be located entirely within the SFPUC ROW 

easement. The western part of the construction zone would extend between two existing singlefamily 

homes on Ridgewood Drive at Banbury Lane (1100 and 1094 Ridgewood Drive), through a 

portion of the City of Millbrae open space area (City of Millbrae, 1998), then extending along the 

northern edge of the Green Hills Country Club—through a stand of mature oak trees just north of 

the driving range, and extending eastward about 100 feet into an active play area of the golf course. 

The Green Hills Country Club is a private membership club with an 18-hole golf course that was 

designed in 1929 by the world-renowned golf course designer, Dr. Alister MacKenzie. The course 

was opened in 1930. In addition to the golf course and driving range, other on-site amenities 

include tennis courts, a swimming pool, and a new club house (which replaced a former club house 

in 2009) that includes a pro shop and bar/restaurant facilities. 

Four access routes are proposed, all of which would follow, at least to some extent, existing city 

streets through the existing single-family, residential neighborhood. One route would entail 

access from Ridgewood Drive immediately adjacent to the construction zone. Another route 

would require minor improvements to the trail that extends through the City of Millbrae open 

space area from Lomita Avenue to the SFPUC ROW. A third route would involve accessing the 

construction zone from Larkspur Drive via the Green Hills Country Club driving range. The 

fourth route would involve accessing the construction zone from Capuchino Drive to Bertocchi 





Lane to the trail described for route two above. This route would pass approximately 150 feet 

south of two Montessori schools and a preschool, including their school gardens and playing 

fields. A 1.1-acre staging area is proposed to be located north of the SFPUC ROW in the City of 

Millbrae open space area behind the residences on Ridgewood Drive, and staging would also be 

located south of the SFPUC ROW and at the eastern terminus of the construction zone on the golf 

course. 

5.2.1.6 Common Staging Area 

The common staging area proposed for all five sites would be located on a portion of the 

SFPUC’s Baden Valve Lot, a fenced facility located within the SFPUC ROW, on the west side of El 

Camino Real at West Orange Avenue in the city of South San Francisco (see inset on Figure 3-3 in 

Chapter 3, Project Description). The Baden Valve Lot is a triangular-shaped property 

approximately two acres in size. The northern portion of this property (approximately acre in 

size) would be used as a common staging area for the PPSU project, for uses such as construction 

office trailers and employee parking. Surrounding land uses include single-family residences to 

the west, a funeral home (Garden Chapel Funeral Directors) to the north, and mixed commercial 

uses along El Camino Real to the east and south of the Baden Valve Lot. 

5.2.2 Regulatory Framework 

The section below describes applicable regulations pertaining to land use resources within the 

project area. For a list of specific permits required for implementation of the proposed project, see 

Section 3.10, Required Permits. 

5.2.2.1 Federal Regulations 

No federal land use regulations directly apply to the proposed project. 

5.2.2.2 State Regulations 

No State land use regulations directly apply to the proposed project. 

5.2.2.3 Local Regulations 

Under California Government Code Section 53090, et seq., the SFPUC receives intergovernmental 

immunity from city and county zoning and building ordinances. Refer to Chapter 4, Plans and 

Policies, for a discussion of the regulatory setting related to land use plans and policies and more 

detailed information concerning intergovernmental immunity. 

5.2.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures 

5.2.3.1 Significance Criteria 

The CCSF has not formally adopted significance standards for impacts related to land use, but 

generally considers that implementation of the proposed project would have a significant impact 

on land uses if it would: 





 

 

 

 

Physically divide an established community; 

Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with 

jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local 

coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an 

environmental effect; 1 

Have a substantial impact on the existing character of the vicinity; or 

Substantially impact or disrupt existing land uses or land use activities. 

5.2.3.2 Approach to Analysis 

Because of the nature of the proposed project, there would be no construction or operational 

impacts related to the following significance criteria. Therefore, an impact discussion is not 

provided for these topics for the reasons described below. 

 

 

Physically divide an established community. There is no potential for dividing established 

communities. The project would occur within established communities, but since the project 

involves replacing below-ground pipelines within the existing SFPUC ROW and restoring 

landscaping, there would be no displacement of community facilities or introduction of a 

new linear facility that would divide a community. Therefore, this significance criterion is not 

applicable to the proposed project and is not discussed further. 

Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with 

jurisdiction over the project. No applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations that pertain 

to subsurface water transmission pipelines have been adopted for the purpose of avoiding or 

mitigating an environmental effect. Therefore, this significance criterion is not discussed further 

in this section. Land use plans and policies are discussed more generally in Chapter 4 of this 

Draft Environmental Impact Report. 

This analysis considers the proposed project’s potential to adversely affect the existing character 

of the vicinity and the project’s potential to substantially impact or disrupt existing land uses or 

land use activities either directly or indirectly during construction or operation. Direct impacts 

could include temporary displacement or disruption of access to existing land uses, or a 

substantial impact on the existing character of the vicinity. Indirect impacts on land uses or land 

use activities could result from a combination of short-term effects, including emissions of criteria 

air pollutants, increased noise levels, traffic safety hazards, and impeded access related to traffic 

congestion and detours. These temporary effects could indirectly disturb or disrupt land uses in 

the vicinity of the project area in a way that substantially alters the land use character. The direct 

physical impacts related to each of these topics are analyzed separately in Sections 5.6, 

Transportation and Circulation; 5.7, Noise; and 5.8, Air Quality. Findings are summarized in this 

section to evaluate their indirect effects on existing land uses. 

1 

See Section 5.14, Biological Resources, for analysis pertaining to conflicts with applicable habitat conservation plan or 

natural community conservation plan. 





5.2.3.3 Summary of Impacts 

Table 5.2-1 summarizes the project’s land use impacts and significance determinations. These are 

discussed further in the subsections below. 

Table 5.2-1 

Summary of Impacts – Land Use and Land Use Planning 

Significance Determination 

Impacts 

Colma 

South 




Bruno 

North 


Bruno 

South 

Millbrae 

Common 

Staging 

Area 

Impact LU-1: Project 

construction could have a 

substantial temporary direct 

or indirect impact on the 

existing character of the 

vicinity, or could substantially 

impact or disrupt existing 

land uses or land use 

activities. 

Impact LU-2: Project 

operations would not result in 

substantial long-term or 

permanent impacts on the 

existing character of the 

vicinity or could substantially 

impact or disrupt existing 

land uses or land use 

activities. 

Impact C-LU: Project 

construction could result in a 

cumulatively considerable 

contribution to cumulative 

impacts on existing land uses. 

LSM LSM LSM LSM LSM NI 

NI LS NI NI LS NI 

LSM LSM LSM LSM LSM NI 

Notes: 

NI = No Impact 


LSM = Less-than-Significant impact with Mitigation 

SUM = Significant and Unavoidable with Mitigation 





5.2.3.4 Construction Impacts and Mitigation Measures 

Impact LU-1: Project construction could have a substantial temporary direct or indirect 

impact on the existing character of the vicinity or could substantially impact or disrupt 

existing land uses or land use activities. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) 

Figures 3-2 through 3-6 in Chapter 3, Project Description, show proposed construction zones, 

staging areas, and proposed access routes in relation to existing land uses at each of the sites. The 

potential for construction-related direct or indirect land use impacts would vary for each site, as 

discussed below and as reflected in Table 5.2-1. 

Direct Impacts 

Direct impacts on the character of the project area or disruption to land use or land use activities 

could occur if the project were to temporarily displace or impede access to existing land uses 

during construction. Access to an existing land use could be impeded by blocking commonly 

used entryways, or by removing parking resources that are needed for users of a particular 

community facility. Most of the project sites (proposed construction zones and staging areas) 

consist of vacant land. In some cases, however, facilities have been developed within or near the 

ROW that could be displaced or disrupted during excavation and construction activities, or 

access to adjacent land uses could be disrupted by construction activities. Potential impacts are 

examined by site below. 

Colma Site (Less than Significant) 

At the Colma site, construction would occur entirely within the existing SFPUC ROW, on fenced 

and vacant land. The proposed staging area, however, would temporarily displace a strip 

(approximately 200 feet in length) of paved area at the rear of the Kohl’s department store, 

immediately adjacent to the SFPUC ROW. This area is striped for parking, and it is occasionally 

used by nearby automotive-related businesses for temporary vehicle storage, but it is not used by 

Kohl’s department store customers. Kohl’s uses the area behind the store mainly for merchandise 

deliveries and trash collection (Fletcher, 2012). 

The staging area would be designed so as not to impede access to and circulation along the rear 

of the store, and none of the customer parking in front of the department store would be 

displaced. However, because construction is proposed to begin at the Colma site in mid- 

December, during the busy holiday shopping period that extends over the last 6 weeks of the 

calendar year, construction-related traffic could delay or disrupt deliveries or customer access to 

parking that facilitates use of the store. Because the area designated for construction staging is 

not used for customer parking, the temporary removal of the 40 parking spaces would not 

substantially affect the overall use of the Kohl’s department store. The project would not displace 

or substantially disrupt any existing land uses or change the character of the existing commercial 

area; therefore, this land use impact would be less than significant. 

Although parking and traffic impacts at the Colma site would be less than significant, Mitigation 

Measure M-TR-3: Traffic Control Plan (see Section 5.6, Transportation and Circulation) would 

reduce any adverse impacts related to merchandise delivery and trash collection at Kohl’s by 

requiring the preparation of a Traffic Management Plan. A Traffic Management Plan would 





identify special issues, such as heavy use of the area during the holiday shopping period, and the 

appropriate actions to address these issues (such as the use of flaggers if necessary). 

South San Francisco Site (Less than Significant) 

The construction zone at the South San Francisco site would be located entirely within the 

existing SFPUC ROW on predominantly vacant land between residential uses on Arroyo Drive 

and commercial uses on Camaritas Avenue, extending beneath Westborough Boulevard and 

along the northern edge of the California Golf Club of San Francisco. Construction would not 

displace any existing structures or other community facilities or golf course amenities, nor would 

it change the character of the mixed use area. Construction would involve some removal of 

vegetation, but this would occur at the side of the adjacent residence and at the back of the 

adjacent commercial uses, and sufficient vegetation would remain to buffer views of the 

construction zone from the golf course. Therefore, project construction would not displace or 

impede access to existing land uses at the South San Francisco site, and this impact would be less 

than significant. 

San Bruno North Site (No Impact) 

Construction at the San Bruno North site would occur within the existing SFPUC ROW and on 

adjacent open space between the ROW and the I-280 freeway off-ramp. No buildings or 

community facilities would be displaced by the project, the character of the vicinity would not be 

changed, and access to other adjacent land uses would not be disrupted. Therefore, there would 

be no impacts related to direct displacement or land use access disruption at this site. 

San Bruno South Site (Less than Significant) 

Construction would occur entirely within the existing SFPUC ROW on vacant land. No buildings 

or other facilities would be displaced by activities within the construction zone, nor would the 

character of the vicinity be altered. Construction activities at Shelter Creek Condominiums could 

temporarily disrupt access to the lower level of Garage 4, Parking Lot B, and Parking Lot C; and 

would also temporarily remove some parking spaces in Lot B for the duration of construction. 

However, alternative access would be provided for the parking lots and garage, as described in 

Section 5.6, Transportation and Circulation. 

Staging of construction activities would partially occur at the north parking lot on the San Bruno 

Chinese Church property. This parking lot is generally not used on weekdays, but does 

accommodate church members on weekends (Wong, 2012; Wu, 2012). The project construction 

activities would occupy this parking area during the week and would return the area during the 

weekend for church parking, as described in Chapter 3, Project Description. This parking area 

would be available during the weekend so that adequate parking would be maintained during 

the most attended church activities. 

The portion of the Peninsula High School parking lot that is proposed for construction staging is 

a fenced-off maintenance yard that is not used for parking. The adjacent parking lot is heavily 

used on weekends and at other times for athletic events at the nearby athletic fields, as well as for 

church parking for the Central Peninsula Church that meets in the high school gymnasium on 

Sundays (Russell, 2011); however, this parking area would not be used or otherwise affected by 

project construction. On weekends during heavily attended athletic events, some drivers park 





off-street, within the SFPUC ROW, east of Courtland Drive. That area is proposed for 

construction staging. The proposed staging area along the unpaved area of Courtland Drive 

would not reduce the availability of legal street parking spaces, but would displace the unofficial 

off-street parking within that SFPUC ROW. People currently parking in those areas would be 

required to park farther from the athletic fields, either in the parking lots on the southern end of 

the high school or on Courtland Drive. There is ample parking in the high school parking lots to 

accommodate those vehicles, as documented in a traffic study performed for Central Peninsula 

Church, which was approved by the San Bruno Planning Commission in September 2011 (City of 

San Bruno, 2011). 

Therefore, because the project would not substantially conflict with existing parking resources 

that facilitate access to nearby community facilities or other land uses, impacts would be less 


Millbrae Site (Less than Significant with Mitigation) 

Construction would occur within the SFPUC ROW where it extends between two single-family 

homes on Ridgewood Drive at Banbury Lane, across city-owned open space that is used for 

passive recreational purposes, and into the Green Hills Country Club property. One existing 

structure, a gazebo built within the SFPUC ROW in the side yard of the single family home at 

1094 Ridgewood Drive, would be displaced. Mature trees would be removed from the ROW, as 

well as from an approximately 50-foot by 150-foot area of the rough and fairway adjacent to the 

fifth hole at the Green Hills Country Club golf course. In addition, a proposed access route on the 

trail from Lomita Avenue and an approximately 1.1-acre staging area would be located within 

the City of Millbrae open space area. Another proposed access route may extend through the 

driving range at the Green Hills Country Club golf course. These activities could temporarily 

result in substantial disruption and displacement of recreation facilities associated with the golf 

course, or a temporary change to the recreational character of the vicinity, a potentially 

significant land use impact. (The potential impact to adjacent homes is addressed below under 

Indirect Impacts). 

Both the City of Millbrae open space area and the golf course are recreational facilities that are 

analyzed in greater detail in Section 5.11, Recreation. As noted in this section, the City of Millbrae 

would determine whether to keep the trail open when not needed for construction access; the 

temporary impact would not be significant. In addition, implementation of Mitigation 

Measure M-RE-1: Coordination with Green Hills Country Club Facility Managers would 

facilitate the continued use of the golf course during project construction. With this mitigation 

measure, the impact to the golf course would be reduced to less than significant. Therefore, 

associated land use impacts related to the disruption of recreation land uses would be less than 

significant with mitigation. 

Common Staging Area (No Impact) 

Project activities at the common staging area would be located within the SFPUC’s Baden Valve 

Lot. These activities would include use of the area for temporary staging and spoils storage for 

materials and equipment; worker vehicle parking; and installation of temporary construction 

equipment trailers and office trailers. The character of the vicinity would not be changed, and 





access to other adjacent land uses would not be disrupted. Therefore, there would be no impacts 

related to direct displacement or land use access disruption at the common staging area. 

Indirect Impacts 

The project sites are located in the vicinity of land uses that could be sensitive to temporary 

construction impacts such as increased traffic, noise, vibration, dust, and exhaust emissions, or 

nighttime lighting. These factors would be considered indirect impacts because they could 

contribute to changes in the character of land uses, but would not directly alter or displace them. 

PPSU project construction periods would range from 1 month at the San Bruno North site to 

approximately 9 months at the San Bruno South site; however, the duration of indirect impacts 

would typically be shorter for specific sensitive receptors (e.g., residences) depending on the type 

of construction activities at any given time. 

PPSU project construction activities would occur concurrently at multiple sites. Work would take 

place primarily on weekdays from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. Weekend work may be required on a limited 

basis, although the nature of such work is not currently known. Weekend construction hours 

would be the same as those described for weekdays. Weekend work could conflict less with 

certain land uses, such as schools and daycare centers, which operate only during the weekdays; 

but more with other uses, such as homes, athletic fields, golf courses, or churches, which are 

generally more heavily used on weekends. In addition, nighttime construction may be required at 

the San Bruno North site. Nighttime activities would also include limited 24-hour pumping for 

dewatering of the pipelines at a few locations, as described in Chapter 3, Project Description. 

Construction activities associated with the proposed project would involve the operation of 

diesel-powered construction equipment and vehicles, and would increase noise, traffic, dust and 

emissions of criteria air pollutants. In addition, project construction would increase vehicle and 

truck traffic along neighborhood roadways, which would generate noise and diesel emissions 

and potentially increase traffic safety risks for adjacent land uses, due to the increased potential 

for conflicts between construction vehicles and pedestrians, bicyclists, and non-constructionrelated 

automobiles. The combination of construction-related traffic, noise/vibration, and dust/ 

exhaust emissions could adversely affect daytime residential land use activities nearby. Similarly, 

disruptions could occur to recreational activities such as playing golf, or to educational activities. 

These disruptions would be temporary; however, during the construction period they could 

substantially change the character of the vicinity or disrupt adjacent land uses or land use 

activities, resulting in significant land use impacts. 

Mitigation Measure M-LU-1a: Notice of Construction Activities would address these indirect 

impacts by providing advance notice to affected land uses. Mitigation measures that address 

direct impacts of other resource topics but that relate to indirect land use impacts are described in 

Sections 5.3, Aesthetics; 5.6, Transportation and Circulation; 5.7, Noise; and 5.8, Air Quality. 

Mitigation Measure M-LU-1a: Notice of Construction Activities 

This mitigation measure applies to all the project sites. The following notification 

procedures shall be implemented prior to construction: 



5.EnvironmentalSetting,Impacts,andMitigationMeasures 

5.2LandUseandLandUsePlanning 

1. The SFPUC shall provide advance notification to businesses, property owners, 

facility managers, and residents of adjacent areas potentially affected by the PPSU 

project about the nature, extent, and duration of construction activities, at least 

1weekpriortoconstruction.TheSFPUCshallalsoprovideinterimupdatestothese 

parties during periods of active construction to inform them of the status of the 

constructionactivitiesandschedule.Noticesshallbesenttosensitivereceptorsand 

affectedadjacentpropertiesidentifiedbelow: 

 

 

 

 

 

Colma Site – Kohl’s Department Store; Home Sweet Home Assisted Living 

Facility;andCypressLawnMemorialCemetery; 

SouthSanFranciscoSite–Residencesadjacenttotheconstructionzonealong 

Arroyo Drive; Clubview Apartments; and California Golf Club of San 

Francisco; 

San Bruno North Site – Residences adjacent to the construction zone along 

CedarwoodCourtandPepperDrive; 

San Bruno South Site – Park Plaza Apartments and Shelter Creek 

Condominiums; Residences adjacent to the construction zone along Courtland 

Drive; Peninsula High School and other uses at the former Crestmoor High 

School campus; Peninsula High School Athletic Fields; and San Bruno Chinese 

Church;and 

Millbrae Site – Green Hills Country Club; Meadows Elementary School; 

ResidencesadjacenttotheconstructionzonealongRidgewoodDrive,Hacienda 

Way, Helen Drive, Banbury Lane; Millwood Drive and Barcelona Drive; and 

GlenOaksandMillbraeMontessoriSchools; 

2. TheSFPUCshallcoordinatewithmanagersoffacilitiesincluding,butnotlimitedto, 

Kohl’sDepartmentStore,SanBrunoChineseChurch,PeninsulaHighSchool,andthe 

Green Hills Country Club to minimize disruptions to facility operations and 

activities,totheextentfeasible. 

3. Should weekend work be necessary, the SFPUC shall notify adjacent properties, 

includingreasonableadvancenotificationtothebusinesses,owners,andresidentsof 

adjacentareaspotentiallyaffectedbytheproposedproject,andinterimupdatesshall 

beprovided. 

Nighttimeconstructionactivities,whichmayberequiredattheSanBrunoNorthsite,would 

use lighting. They could result in substantial light and glare impacts (refer to Section5.3, 

Aesthetics), and temporarily result in a significant indirect land use impact. The noticing 

requirements contained in Mitigation MeasureMLU1b: Minimum 2Week Notice of 

Construction Activities to Homes with Significant Unavoidable Noise Impacts (described 

below),wouldalertresidentstoupcomingnighttimeconstructionactivities,andprovideatoll 

free number for reporting constructionrelated complaints, reducing impacts to a lessthan 

significantlevel. 

SFPUCPeninsulaPipelinesSeismicUpgrade 5.211 EnvironmentalPlanningCaseNo.2011.0123E 


March2013



As detailed in Section5.7, Noise, for certain homes located in very close proximity to the 

construction zones, or in certain locations where building heights or elevations make noise 

barriers infeasible or ineffective, noise and vibration impacts would remain significant and 

unavoidable,evenwithimplementationofmitigationmeasuressummarizedunderNoise,above. 

In these cases, the speech or sleep interference thresholds could be exceeded for greater than 

2weeks. This aggravating new source of noise could be compounded by a sense of loss of 

privacyondecksorinbackyardsassociatedwiththesehomes,especiallyifresidentsareathome 

during daytime construction hours. This would be a potentially significant land use impact. 

These affected homes are listed below in Mitigation MeasureMLU1b: Minimum 2Week 

Notice of Construction Activities to Homes with Significant Unavoidable Noise Impacts, 

which would reduce temporary land use conflicts associated with the project by requiring 

advancenotificationtoadjacentresidencesofconstructionactivities. 

MitigationMeasureMLU1b:Minimum2WeekNoticeofConstructionActivitiesto 

HomeswithSignificantUnavoidableNoiseImpacts 

This mitigation measure applies to the South San Francisco, San Bruno North, San 

BrunoSouth,andMillbraesitesonly.TheSFPUCoritscontractorshallprovide14day 

advance notice by mail or hand delivery to all residents, tenants, and/or property 

owners in those homes listed below as being potentially subject to significant and 

unavoidable noise impacts, even after administrative and source controls are 

implemented. 

 

 

 

 

SouthSanFranciscoSite–ArroyoDrive(addressnumbers105,107and108); 

SanBrunoNorthSite–CedarwoodCourt(addressnumbers1790,1791,1800,1801, 

1820,1821,1840,and1841);andPepperDrive(addressnumbers763,769,773,779, 

783,789,793,and795); 

SanBrunoSouthSite–CourtlandDrive(addressnumbers300,306,310,316,320, 

326,330,336,340,350,360,and370);ShelterCreekCondominiumsBuildings4A,4B, 

and4D;andParkPlazaApartments;and 

MillbraeSite–HaciendaWay(addressnumbers859,869,873,877,881,885,889,913, 

and917); Ridgewood Drive (address numbers 1078, 1086, 1094, 1100, 1101, 1106, 

1110,1116,1120,1126,and1130);andBanburyLane(addressnumber971). 

The notice will state the construction location, anticipated activities, and schedule, 

including whether nighttime construction is proposed. The notice will provide 

information about anticipated constructionrelated noise impacts and provide 

suggestionsforavoidingorreducingexposuretosuchimpacts(e.g.,planningalternative 

schedules, closing windows facing the planned construction sites). The SFPUC shall 

identifyandprovideapublicliaisonpersonbeforeandduringconstructiontorespondto 

the concerns of neighboring property owners. Procedures for contacting the public 

liaisonofficerviaatollfreetelephonenumber,email,orinpersonwillbeincludedinthe 

notices. Prior to construction, the SFPUC communications manager, resident engineer, 



March2013



and construction manager shall develop and review procedures for receiving and 

respondingtoquestionsandcomplaints. 

Although the direct impact resulting from construction noise is considered significant and 

unavoidable (refer to Section5.7, Noise), implementation of Mitigation MeasuresMLU1a 

andMLU1b would reduce indirect land use impacts resulting from construction activities by 

providing sufficient notification, options, and suggestions for occupants; therefore, the impact 

wouldbelessthansignificantwithmitigation. 

5.2.3.5 OperationalImpactsandMitigationMeasures 

ImpactLU2:Projectoperationswouldnotresultinsubstantiallongtermorpermanent 

impactsontheexistingcharacterofthevicinityorimpactstoordisruptionofexisting 

landusesorlanduseactivities.(LessthanSignificant) 

Longterm impacts related to land use disruption could occur if the PPSU project were to 

permanentlydisplaceordisruptestablishedlandusesorchangethecharacterofthevicinitydue 

to project siting or operation. The proposed facilities and improvements would be constructed 

underground within the existing SFPUC ROW, with only temporary staging areas and access 

roads outside of the existing ROW. Permitted structures in the ROW that would be removed 

duringconstructionwouldbereplaced;however,unpermittedstructures—includingthegazebo 

attheMillbraesite—arenotproposedtobereplaced.Suchchangestoexistingfacilitieswouldbe 

minorandwouldnotrepresentachangeinlandusecharacterofthevicinityoradisruptionto 

existinglanduses. 

Thecharacteroftheprojectvicinity,followingimplementationoftheproposedproject,wouldbe 

similarto,andconsistentwith,theexistinglandusecharacteroftheimmediatevicinity.Atthe 

Colma,SanBrunoNorth,andSanBrunosouthsiteslongtermchangestotheexistingcharacter 

ofthevicinitywouldbenegligibleafterrevegetationoftheprojectsites.Althoughtheexisting 

wooded character along portions of the South San Francisco and Millbrae sites would change 

becausetreeswouldnotbereplanted,consistentwiththeSFPUCROWIntegratedManagement 

Policy, othertrees outsideof the ROWwould remain and would continue tocontribute to the 

naturalcharacterofthearea,asdescribedinSection5.3,Aesthetics. 

These longterm changes to the existing character and removal of encroaching trees and 

structures are considered less than significant at the South San Francisco and Millbrae sites 

because they would not result in the substantial disruption of the ongoing residential, 

institutional, and recreational uses in the vicinity or in substantial changes to the land use 

characterofthearea.Attheotherthreesitesandthecommonstagingarea,therewouldbeno 

impact. 



March2013



5.2.3.6 Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Measures 

Impact C-LU: Project construction could result in a cumulatively considerable 

contribution to cumulative impacts on existing land uses. (Less than Significant with 

Mitigation) 

The geographic scope for potential cumulative land use impacts encompasses land uses in the 

vicinity of the PPSU project sites, including the access roads. Cumulative impacts on the existing 

character of the project vicinity or impacts on, or disruption to, land uses or land use activities 

resulting from increases in construction-related noise, traffic and traffic safety hazards, or 

emissions of criteria air pollutants, could be significant if the construction schedule for the 

proposed project overlapped with the schedules for other projects in the same vicinity. 

The cumulative projects identified in Table 5.1-1 would be located near PPSU project sites and 

could overlap in schedule. If construction of these projects overlaps with construction of the 

PPSU project, the PPSU project could contribute to cumulative impacts related to the existing 

character of the project vicinity or disruption of existing land uses. Most of the cumulative 

projects listed in Table 5.1-1, however, would not directly affect the same land uses as the PPSU 

project, because they are not located in the same immediate vicinity (e.g. within 150 feet) as the 

proposed project construction sites, with the exception of the Groundwater Storage and Recovery 

(GSR) project, which would be located at the PPSU Colma site and near the common staging area 

in South San Francisco. The GSR project would share the same construction area as the PPSU 

Colma site; it would be located in the SFPUC ROW, near or adjacent to the common staging area, 

depending on the GSR location alternative implemented. GSR activities at these sites would 

include the installation of a groundwater well or the conversion of a test well to a groundwater 

production well, water and other utility connections, and installation of a chemical treatment/ 

filtration building. 

At the Colma site, because the construction activities for the PPSU and GSR projects are not 

substantial, and the direct land use impacts associated with these two projects are minor, there 

would be a less-than-significant cumulative impact to land uses. At the common staging area, 

the PPSU project would have no direct land use impacts, the character of the vicinity would not 

be changed, and access to other adjacent land uses would not be disrupted, as described in the 

project analysis above. Therefore, at the common staging area there would be no impacts. 

Air quality, traffic and traffic safety hazards, or noise impacts from the cumulative projects could 

result in indirect cumulative land use impacts, if such impacts were to occur at the same time and 

in similar locations as similar impacts associated with the PPSU project. This could result in 

indirect land use impacts, because they could contribute to changes in the character of land uses 

(although they would not directly alter or displace them). Two of the identified cumulative 

projects have the potential to overlap with the PPSU project schedule at four PPSU locations: the 

GSR project could overlap with construction activities at the Colma and South San Francisco 

sites, as well as the common staging area (as described above); and the Harry Tracy Water 

Treatment Plant Long-Term Improvements project could overlap with PPSU tree removal 

activities at the Millbrae site (this project would not be in close enough proximity to the PPSU 

project at this site to result in direct cumulative land use impacts). Depending on the severity of 

the impacts and the degree to which they overlap, indirect cumulative impacts on land use could 





be significant. The discussion of direct cumulative construction impacts related to other resource 

topics is provided in Sections 5.3, Aesthetics; 5.6, Transportation and Circulation; 5.7, Noise; and 

5.8, Air Quality. To address indirect land use impacts, the proposed project would implement 

Mitigation Measure LU-1a:Notice of Construction Activities and Mitigation 

Measure LU-1b:Minimum 2-Week Notice of Construction Activities to Homes with Significant 

Unavoidable Impacts, which would reduce the project’s contribution to temporary and indirect 

land use impacts. Therefore, the project’s contribution to the indirect impacts on land use would 

not be cumulatively considerable with the implementation of mitigation measures. 

For all of the reasons described above, the PPSU project would not have a cumulatively 

considerable contribution to cumulative land use impacts during construction (less than 

significant with mitigation). 


Carlisle, Jackie, 2011. Telephone conversation between Jackie Carlisle, City of San Bruno 

Community Services Department, Parks and Recreation Division, and Mara Feeney of Mara 

Feeney & Associates, May 20. 

City of Millbrae, 1998. City of Millbrae General Plan. Adopted November 24, 1998. 

City of San Bruno, 2011. City of San Bruno Planning Commission Staff Report, Item No. 5.A 

(Request for Conditional Use Permit, 300 Piedmont Avenue). September 20. 


Store Manager and Mara Feeney, Mara Feeney & Associates. September 20. 

McManus, Elizabeth, 2011. Telephone conversation between Elizabeth McManus, Deputy 

Superintendent, San Mateo Union High School District, and Mara Feeney of Mara Feeney & 

Associates. May 20. 

San Francisco Examiner, 2010. “Crestmoor School Debate Not Over,” November 24, 2010. 

Accessed December 3, 2010. 

Wong, Stephanie, 2012. Personal conversation between Stephanie Wong, San Bruno Chinese 

Church, and Mara Feeney, Mara Feeney & Associates. 

Wu, Andrew, 2012. Personal communication between Daniel Jaimes, SFPUC Communications 

Coordinator, and Pastor Wu, San Bruno Chinese Church and Meeting Notes from conference call 

with San Bruno Chinese Church. September 14 and September 20. 


Project Manager, and Hannah Young, URS. December 5. 






This section describes existing aesthetics and visual resources in the vicinity of the proposed 

Peninsula Pipelines Seismic Upgrade (PPSU) project, and evaluates the potential aesthetic 

impacts of the proposed project. Mitigation measures to avoid or reduce adverse impacts are 

identified, as appropriate. 

5.3.1 Setting 

The proposed project is located in the Town of Colma and the cities of South San Francisco, San 

Bruno, Millbrae, and in unincorporated San Mateo County, in the northern portion of the San 

Francisco Peninsula (see Figure 3-1 in Chapter 3, Project Description). To the west of the cities are 

the Pacific Coast Range foothills and intervening valleys, and to the east are the flatland areas 

that extend to San Francisco Bay. 

The existing water transmission pipelines are located within the San Francisco Public Utilities 

Commission (SFPUC) right-of-way (ROW). The pipelines in the study area 1 are underground, 

and are therefore not visible. The SFPUC ROW is an existing utility corridor that passes through 

neighborhoods and community areas, cemeteries, and commercial and recreational areas. The 

SFPUC ROW contains minimal visible utility facilities. The few visible facilities include manhole 

covers, aboveground valve boxes, and customer service connections, with storm drains crossing 

the SFPUC ROW at some locations. 

Views of the five sites and the common staging area can be seen by pedestrians, bicyclists, and 

motorists on surrounding roadways, by recreationists (including those using the trail through the 

City of Millbrae open space area accessible from Lomita Avenue, and the Green Hills Country 

Club at the Millbrae site), by staff and patrons of nearby commercial and institutional 

establishments, from the San Bruno Chinese Church, and from a limited number of neighboring 

residences. 

5.3.1.1 Scenic Vistas 

Scenic vistas are views of an area or landscape that are visually or aesthetically pleasing. Scenic 

routes or corridors contain views of these vistas. 

Scenic vistas in the study area can be seen from designated scenic highways and corridors, as 

well as from local roadways. A scenic corridor can be described as a roadway or highway with 

unique or distinctive physical or cultural features. According to the California Department of 

Transportation’s (Caltrans) Scenic Highway Guidelines, a scenic highway passes through an area 

of outstanding scenic quality, containing striking views, flora, geology, and other unique natural 

attributes (Caltrans, 2011). 

1 The aesthetics study area consists of the five sites and the common staging area, as well as surrounding areas with 

publicly accessible views of the sites. 





The general plans for the Town of Colma (Town of Colma, 1999 and 2000) and for the cities of 

South San Francisco (City of South San Francisco, 1999) and Millbrae (City of Millbrae, 1998) do 

not identify any scenic vistas in the study area. 

The San Bruno General Plan (City of San Bruno, 2009) recognized the following as local scenic 

corridors: 

Skyline Boulevard (identified in the general plan as a State scenic highway) – 

approximately 1.3 miles and 0.6 mile from the San Bruno North and San Bruno South sites, 

respectively; 

 

 

 

Crystal Springs Road (County Scenic Road) – approximately 0.9 and 0.5 mile from the San 

Bruno North and San Bruno South sites, respectively; 

Sharp Park Road (identified in the general plan as a County Scenic Road) – approximately 

2.5 and 2.7 miles from the San Bruno North and San Bruno South sites, respectively; and 

Sneath Lane – approximately 0.5 and 0.9 mile from the San Bruno North and San Bruno 

South sites, respectively. 

The San Mateo County General Plan defines a scenic corridor as land adjacent to a scenic road 

which, when seen from the road, provides outstanding views of natural landscapes and attractive 

manmade development (San Mateo County, 1986). The General Plan identifies Cabrillo Highway 

(also known as State Route [SR] 1) from Junipero Serra Freeway to the northern limits of the City 

of Half Moon Bay as a scenic road in Colma within a distance of 0.7 mile from the Colma site; and 

Westborough Boulevard between Skyline Boulevard and Junipero Serra Freeway as a scenic road 

in South San Francisco, approximately 0.9 mile from the South San Francisco site. The San Mateo 

County General Plan also identifies Crystal Springs Road as a scenic road in San Bruno; as stated 

above, this road is approximately 0.5 and 0.9 mile from the San Bruno North and San Bruno 

South sites, respectively. 

In San Mateo County, portions of SR 35 and SR 1 have been designated as scenic highways by 

Caltrans (Caltrans, 2011). However, the portion of SR 35 listed as a scenic highway is 

approximately 7 miles from the closest site, the Millbrae site. The portion of SR 1 listed as a scenic 

highway is approximately 9 miles from the closest site, the Millbrae site. Interstate 280 (I-280) is 

the only Caltrans-designated scenic highway in close proximity to the project. I-280 is discussed 

in the State regulatory section (Section 5.3.2.2), below. The San Mateo County General Plan (San 

Mateo County, 1986) also identified these portions of I-280 as a scenic road. 

5.3.1.2 Visual Resources 

Visual resources are generally defined as both the natural and built features of the landscape that 

add to or result in the visual quality of an area. Visual resources may include trees, rock 

outcroppings, viewsheds, ridgelines, gateways, waterways, open-space corridors, and built 

features such as structures and roads. The following discussion summarizes visual resources as 

identified in the General Plan of the respective jurisdiction. 





San Mateo County 

As noted above, the San Mateo General Plan (San Mateo County, 1986) identifies I-280 from 

Millbrae to the Santa Clara County line as a State-designated scenic road. I-280 is also discussed 

in the State regulatory section (Section 5.3.2.2), below. 

Town of Colma 

The Town of Colma General Plan identifies tree masses as contributing to the visual quality of the 

town. The general plan identifies pine, cypress, acacia, and eucalyptus as the typical tree species 

planted in these groupings. 

The Colma General Plan Land Use Element identifies six distinct gateways where motorists, 

bicyclists, and pedestrians view the town. These gateways and their distance to the Colma site are 

shown in Table 5.3-1. 

Table 5.3-1 

Gateways and Scenic Corridors 

Gateway/Scenic Corridor Location 

Approximate Distance 

to Nearest Project Site 

Town of Colma 

Mission Street at the intersection of B Street 

El Camino Real and Mission Road 

Serramonte Boulevard and Collins Avenue where they intersect 

Junipero Serra Boulevard 

Hillside Boulevard at the intersection of Hoffman Street 

Hillside Boulevard at the Hickey Boulevard extension (a proposed 

future gateway) 

Mission Road at the Hickey Boulevard extension (a proposed 

future gateway) 

City of San Bruno 


Skyline Boulevard (at northern city limits) 

Skyline Boulevard (at southern city limits) 

Sharp Park Road (at western city limit) 

0.7 mile 

0.2 mile 

0.4 mile 

0.6 mile 

0.9 mile 

0.6 mile 

2.2 miles 

1.3 miles 

2.5 miles 

I-280 (at the northern city limits) 1.1 miles 

I-280 (at the southern city limits) 1.3 miles 

El Camino Real (at the northern city limits) 

El Camino Real (at the southern city limits) 

San Mateo Avenue (at the northern city limit) 

1.1 miles 

1.3 miles 

1.4 miles 





Table 5.3-1 

Gateways and Scenic Corridors (Continued) 

Gateway/Scenic Corridor Location 

Approximate Distance 

to Nearest Project Site 

I-380 (at the eastern city limit) 1.3 miles 

San Bruno Avenue West (at the eastern city limits) 

San Bruno Avenue West (at the western city limits) 

Skyline Boulevard scenic corridor 

1.3 miles 

0.9 mile 

1.3 miles 

I-280 scenic corridor 0.6 mile 

Crystal Springs Road scenic corridor 

Sharp Park Road scenic corridor 

Sneath Lane scenic corridor 

0.85 mile 

2.5 miles 

0.53 mile 


Skyline Boulevard (at northern city limits) 

Skyline Boulevard (at southern city limits) 

Sharp Park Road (at western city limit) 

2.5 miles 

0.6 mile 

2.5 miles 

I-280 (at the northern city limits) 1.4 miles 

I-280 (at the southern city limits) 0.6 mile 

El Camino Real (at the northern city limits) 

El Camino Real (at the southern city limits) 

San Mateo Avenue (at the northern city limit) 

1.5 miles 

1.1 miles 

1.7 miles 

I-380 (at the eastern city limit) 1.6 miles 

San Bruno Avenue West (at the eastern city limits) 

San Bruno Avenue West (at the western city limits) 

Skyline Boulevard scenic corridor 

1.4 miles 

0.8 mile 

0.6 mile 

I-280 scenic corridor 0.6 mile 

Crystal Springs Road scenic corridor 

Sharp Park Road scenic corridor 

Sneath Lane scenic corridor 

0.14 mile 

0.9 mile 

0.9 mile 

Sources: City of San Bruno, 2009; Town of Colma, 1999. 

Notes: 







City of South San Francisco 

The City of South San Francisco General Plan does not identify any visual resources in the study 

area. 


The City of San Bruno General Plan identifies seven gateways that serve as entrances to the city 

limits or district boundaries, informing visitors and residents that they have entered a special 

place. These gateways contain coordinated landscape design, signage, and street furniture, and 

are considered visual resources in the study area. The roadways and highways that serve as 

gateways to the City of San Bruno, and their distances to the San Bruno North and San Bruno 

South sites, are shown in Table 5.3-1. 

The City of San Bruno General Plan also identifies the tall, shady trees along San Bruno roadways 

as the scenic characteristic contributing to designation of several corridors as scenic. These 

corridors, and their distances to the San Bruno North and San Bruno South sites, are shown in 

Table 5.3-1. 


The City of Millbrae General Plan (City of Millbrae, 1998) does not identify specific visual 

resources in Millbrae. 

5.3.1.3 Visual Character 

Visual character is a general description of the visual attributes of a particular area. The purpose 

of defining the visual character of an area is to provide the context within which the visual 

quality of a particular site or locale is most likely to be perceived from public vantage points. For 

urban areas, visual character is typically described on the neighborhood level or in terms of areas 

with common land use, intensity of development, socioeconomic conditions, and/or landscaping 

and urban design features. For natural and open space settings, visual character is most 

commonly described in terms of areas with common landscape attributes, such as landform, 

vegetation, or water features. 

The individual visible elements in an area contribute to the overall visual character of the area. 

This section identifies the visible elements, including the presence of any unique features, in the 

project sites and describes the overall visual character of each site. 

Figures 5.3-1 through 5.3-10 show the visual character of the five sites as viewed from nearby, 

publicly accessible locations. Across the five sites, the visible elements in, or adjacent to, the 

SFPUC ROW include residential and community structures such as single-family homes, 

apartments and condominiums, schools, a church, commercial establishments, and recreational 

features such as golf courses and trails. Within the SFPUC ROW, utility features such as 

manholes, vaults (up to approximately 3.5 feet in height), and customer service connections are 

visible. 



1b 

b 

! 1 b 


! 2 


Center 

Kohl's 


COLLINS AVE 


vsa/ed U:\GIS\SFPUC_Peninsula_Pipeline\Projects\EIR\ADEIR2\Fig5_3_1_photo_locs_Colma.mxd 10/3/2012 10:26:59 AM 


! 


Cypress Memorial 

Cemetery 

Photo Point Location and Direction 




Access Route 

$ 

0 100 200 

Feet 

b 

! 3 

! 4 

b 


PHOTO POINT LOCATIONS 

COLMA SITE 




FIGURE 5.3-1

View 1: View to the south from Serramonte Boulevard to the 

construction zone in the SFPUC ROW 

View 2: View to the west from Serramonte Boulevard to the staging 

and spoils area 

5/31/12 vsa... T:\SFPUC CS-116 Peninsula Pipelines\DEIR 2012\Fig5_3_2_colma.ai 

View 3: View to northwest from Collins Avenue to the construction 

zone in the SFPUC ROW 

View 4: View to the south from Collins Avenue to the staging and 

spoils area in the SFPUC ROW 

VIEWS OF COLMA SITE 




FIGURE 5.3-2

1b 

! 1 

b 



SITE 

ARROYO DR 


ARROYO DR 



WEST ORANGE 

AVE 


OVERVIEW 


! 3 

b 

CAMARITAS AVE 

b 

! 4 

vsa U:\GIS\SFPUC_Peninsula_Pipeline\Projects\EIR\ADEIR2\Fig5_3_3_photo_locs_SSF.mxd 10/3/2012 10:52:07 AM 

! 


California 

Golf Club of 






Boring Pit 

Access Route 

0 100 

Feet 

$ 

b 

WEST ORANGE 

AVE 

b 

! 2 

KNOLL CIR 


! 6 

! 5 

FAIRWAY DR 



0 100 200 

Feet 

Pacific 

Supermar 






b 

FIGURE 5.3-3

View 1: View to east from the driveway at 106 Arroyo Drive to 

the construction zone in the SFPUC ROW 

View 2: View to the north from 

Westborough Boulevard and Camaritas 

Avenue to the staging and spoils area 

View 3: View to southeast from Westborough Boulevard to 

the construction zone in the SFPUC ROW 

5/31/12 vsa... T:\SFPUC CS-116 Peninsula Pipelines\DEIR 2012\Fig5_3_4_SSB.ai 

View 4: View to the northwest from Westborough 

Boulevard to the construction zone in the SFPUC ROW 

View 5: View to the northwest from Orange Avenue 

to the construction zone in the SFPUC ROW 

View 6: View to the northwest from El Camino Real to 

the common staging area in the SFPUC ROW 

VIEWS OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO SITE 




FIGURE 5.3-4

1b 




! 2 

b 

b 

! 1 

CEDARWOOD CT 

CEDAR AVE 

vsa/ed U:\GIS\SFPUC_Peninsula_Pipeline\Projects\EIR\ERO_DEIR\Fig5_3_5_photo_locs_SanBruno_N.mxd 2/7/2013 10:22:21 AM 

! 


§¨¦ 280 





Access Portal 

Access Route 

$ 

FIGURE 

b 

! 3 

0 100 

Feet 

PEPPER DR 






5.3-5

View 1: View to the south from San Bruno Avenue to the construction 

zone, adjacent to the I-280 off-ramp 

View 2: View to the southeast from San Bruno Avenue to the 

construction zone, adjacent to San Bruno Avenue 

5/31/12 vsa... T:\SFPUC CS-116 Peninsula Pipelines\DEIR 2012\Fig5_3_6_SBnorth_.ai 

View 3: View to the north from the I-280 off ramp, toward San Bruno 

Avenue, with the access route and construction zone to the right 

VIEWS OF SAN BRUNO NORTH SITE 




FIGURE 5.3-6

1b 

Shelter Creek 

Condominiums 

! 1 

b 

Shelter Creek 

Condominiums 

WHITMAN WAY 

b 

! 2 ! 3 

b 


§¨¦ 280 

HAWTHORNE AVE 

JENEVEIN AVE 


ROSEWOOD DR 

GLENBROOK LN 

COURTLAND DR 

Church 

Parking Lot 

vsa/ed U:\GIS\SFPUC_Peninsula_Pipeline\Projects\EIR\ADEIR2\Fig5_3_7_photo_locs_SanBruno_S.mxd 10/4/2012 5:52:26 PM 

! 








Access Route 


Parking Lot 

$ 

FIGURE 

! 5 

b! 6 

b 

0 100 200 

Feet 

b 

! 4 










5.3-7

View 1: View to the west from Shelter Creek Lane toward 

the Shelter Creek Condominiums parking lot along the 

SFPUC ROW, with the construction zone in the background 

View 2: View to the north from Whitman Way 

to the construction zone in the SFPUC ROW 

View 3: View to the south from Whitman Way to the 

construction zone in the SFPUC ROW, with the Park Plaza 

Apartments to the west 

5/31/12 vsa... T:\SFPUC CS-116 Peninsula Pipelines\DEIR 2012\Fig5_3_8_SBsouth.ai 

View 4: View to the south from San Bruno Chinese 

Church parking lot to the staging and spoils area 

View 5: View to the southeast from Courtland Drive 

toward the staging and spoils area beyond the fence, in 

the SFPUC ROW, with the San Bruno Chinese Church in 

the background 

View 6: View to the west from the sidewalk along 

Courtland Drive toward the staging and spoils area at 


VIEWS OF SAN BRUNO SOUTH SITE 




FIGURE 5.3-8

1b 

b 


County Park 

! 1 ! 2 ! 3 

! 5 

LOMITA AVE 

TERRACE DR 

b 


BAYVIEW AVE 

FAIRVIEW 

PL 

ROBIN LN 




RIDGEWOOD DR 

BROOKSIDE LN 

Glen Oaks/ 

Millbrae 


GLENWOOD DR 

FERNWOOD DR 

OAKWOOD DR 

ELMWOOD DR 

b 

BERTOCCHI LN 

CAPUCHINO DR 

HACIENDA WAY 

vsa/ed U:\GIS\SFPUC_Peninsula_Pipeline\Projects\EIR\SC_DEIR\Fig5_3_9_photo_locs_Millbrae.mxd 1/8/2013 5:27:26 PM 

! 


PINEHURST CT 

Meadows 

Elementary 

School 

Source: NAIP Imagery Summer 2010/ SFPUC 2011 

HELEN DR 





Access Route Requiring Upgrade 

Access Route 

MOSSWOOD LN 

BANBURY LN 

Meadows 

Park 

LARKSPUR DR 

$ 

! 4 

0 200 400 

Feet 

b 

! 6 

b 

b 

Green Hills 

Country 

Club 


MILLBRAE SITE 




FIGURE 5.3-9

View 1: View to the south from Lomita Avenue to the 

access route along the Lomita Avenue Trail 

View 2: View to the north from the Lomita 

Avenue Trail along the access route 

View 3: View to the southwest from Bertocchi Lane to 

the Lomita Avenue Trail access route 

5/31/12 vsa... T:\SFPUC CS-116 Peninsula Pipelines\DEIR 2012\Fig5_3_10_millbrae.ai 

View 4: View to east from Ridgewood Drive to the 

construction zone in the SFPUC ROW 

View 5: View to the north of the Green Hills Country Club 

driving range (access route from Larkspur Drive); staging 

and spoils area and construction zone in the distance 

View 6: View to the east from Larkspur Drive to the 

access route at the Green Hills Country Club 

VIEWS OF MILBRAE SITE 




FIGURE 5.3-10



At the Colma site, the SFPUC ROW extends through a vacant parcel and a grassy sloped area 

(Views 1, 3, and 4 on Figure 5.3-2). The site is located between commercial developments, including 

car dealerships, vacant stores, and retail establishments and associated parking lots. The area has 

wide, multilane roads, providing access for large retail stores and car dealerships. The staging and 

spoils area would be located in the Kohl’s Department Store parking lot (View 2 on Figure 5.3-2). 

At the South San Francisco site, the SFPUC ROW passes through a densely wooded area (Views 1 

and 4 on Figure 5.3-4) and a landscaped, grassy area (View 5 on Figure 5.3-4). A residence is 

located adjacent to the northern end of the site on Arroyo Road (Figure 5.3-3 shows the residence 

adjacent to photo point 1). A staging and spoils area would be located in a parking lot across 

Camaritas Avenue (View 2 on Figure 5.3-4). 

The San Bruno North site is a triangular-shaped site bordered by the exit ramp of I-280 (Views 1, 2, 

and 3 on Figure 5.3-6), San Bruno Avenue West, and residences. Trees and other vegetation grow on 

the site. A fence, along with the trees and vegetation, screens the site, San Bruno Avenue West, and 

the exit ramp from the residents. Across San Bruno Avenue West to the north is the Bayhill Shopping 

Center. The shopping center structure and large trees block views of the site from the shopping center. 

The San Bruno South site contains a mix of single-family dwellings, condominiums and 

apartments, a church, and a school. The SFPUC ROW extends through the driveway and parking 

area of the condominiums (View 1 on Figure 5.3-8), past single-family homes on Courtland Drive, 

adjacent to the San Bruno Chinese Church, and across from the Peninsula High School (Views 2 

through 6 on Figure 5.3-8). Adjacent to the single-family dwellings, the site is an undeveloped, 

unpaved strip of open land with vegetation. Views of San Francisco Bay are visible from the 

SFPUC ROW. The SFPUC ROW adjacent to the San Bruno Chinese Church is an open vegetated 

area with some landscaping that is a vegetative buffer between Courtland Drive and the church, 

its driveway, and its parking lot (Views 4 and 5 on Figure 5.3-8). At the San Bruno South site, the 

topography plays a key role in shaping the visual character. Hills to the north and west provide a 

prominent visual backdrop to the commercial areas adjacent to El Camino Real. 

At the Millbrae site, the SFPUC ROW extends through a residential neighborhood of singlefamily 

dwellings, through the City of Millbrae open space area, and through the Green Hills 

Country Club (Views 1 through 6 on Figure 5.3-10). The SFPUC ROW is unpaved, and a dense 

grove of trees is established on the SFPUC ROW (Views 4 and 5 on Figure 5.3-10). The trail from 

Lomita Avenue through the open space area is a unique feature to the area, offering publicly 

accessible open space within the residential neighborhood. The visual character of the area is 

defined by the residential neighborhood, open spaces, and dense trees. 

The common staging area is located on a portion of the SFPUC’s Baden Valve Lot, a 2-acre site at 

the corner of El Camino Real and West Orange Avenue, and is surrounded by commercial and 

residential development (SF Planning, 2008). The common staging area is a 0.32-acre area at the 

north of the Baden Valve Lot, which is generally vegetated with grass. Views of the lot from 

passing pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists on El Camino Real are obscured by a line of trees 

that generally blocks views to the common staging area (View 6 on Figure 5.3-4). 

5.3.1.4 Visual Sensitivity 

The overall visual sensitivity is related to the visual quality of the site and viewer exposure 

conditions. Visual sensitivity is the overall measure of a site’s susceptibility to adverse visual 





changes. Visual sensitivity is rated as high, moderate, or low and is determined based on the 

combined factors of visual quality, viewer types and volumes, and exposure conditions to the 

proposed project. These topics are further defined below. 

Visual quality is defined as the overall visual impression or attractiveness of a site or locale, as 

determined by its aesthetic qualities (such as color, variety, vividness, coherence, uniqueness, 

harmony, and pattern). For this analysis, the visual quality of a site or locale is defined according 

to three levels: 

 

 

 

Low. The location is lacking in natural or cultural visual resource amenities typical of the 

region. A site with low visual quality will have aesthetic elements that are relatively 

unappealing and perceptibly uncharacteristic of the surrounding area. 

Moderate. The location is typical or characteristic of the natural or cultural visual amenities 

of the area. A site with moderate visual quality maintains the visual character of the 

surrounding area, with aesthetic elements that do not stand out as either contributing to, or 

detracting from, the visual character of an area. 

High. The location has visual resources that are unique or exemplary of the natural or cultural 

scenic amenities for the area. A site with high visual quality is likely to stand out as particularly 

appealing and makes a notable positive contribution to the visual character of an area. 

Affected viewers are those who have a strong stake or interest in the quality of the landscape and 

have a greater sensitivity to changes that degrade or detract from the visual character of an area. 

Examples of sensitive viewers might include motorists on designated scenic routes, bikers, 

pedestrians, other recreationists, or tourists. The identification of viewer types and volumes 

describes the type and quantity of potentially affected viewers within the visual study area. Land 

uses that derive value from the quality of their settings are considered potentially sensitive to 

changes in visual conditions. 

Exposure conditions address the variables that affect the viewing conditions of a site. Exposure 

conditions considers some or all of the following factors: landscape visibility (the ability to see the 

landscape); viewing distance (i.e., the proximity of viewers to the project); viewing angle 

(whether the project would be viewed from a superior, inferior, or level line of sight); extent of 

visibility (whether the line of sight is open and panoramic to the project area or restricted by 

terrain, vegetation, and/or structures); and duration of view. 

Colma Site 

Visual Quality 

At the Colma site, the SFPUC ROW is a vegetated grassy strip of land. Public use and access is 

restricted between Serramonte Boulevard and Collins Avenue. To the south of Collins Avenue, the 

proposed staging and spoils area is also vegetated with grasses. The section of the site between 

Serramonte Boulevard and Collins Avenue does not contain any features with notable aesthetic 

qualities, but does provide views of an undeveloped parcel of land located within the commercial 

developments in the area. Bordering the staging and spoils area are eucalyptus trees. The area itself 

does not offer striking visual features, and, therefore, the visual quality is considered low. 





Affected Viewers and Exposure Conditions 

A security fence around the portion of the site north of Collins Avenue restricts unauthorized 

individuals from entering, and the site is lower in elevation than the adjacent Serramonte 

Boulevard and Collins Avenue. To the west of the construction zone is a car dealership, and to the 

east is the loading and overflow parking for the Kohl’s Department Store and the Enterprise Rent- 

A-Car car wash. Views of the site are screened or blocked by large retail buildings or cars. 

Motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians traveling on Serramonte Boulevard might have brief and 

limited views of the construction zone because the roadway passes he site. Motorists, bicyclists, and 

pedestrians travelling on Collins Avenue would also have brief views of the construction zone or 

staging and spoils area as they pass by. Therefore, the site has low viewer exposure, and is visible 

only briefly as motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians, or customers of the area stores pass by or park. 

Visual Sensitivity 

Because the site has low visual quality and low viewer exposure, the Colma site is considered to 

have low visual sensitivity. 



The South San Francisco site is restricted from public use and access between Arroyo Drive and 

Westborough Boulevard. It is predominantly densely vegetated with trees and dense understory 

north of Westborough Boulevard, and some cleared and scrubby areas. To the west of the site 

along Arroyo Drive are residences, and northwest of Westborough Boulevard is an impenetrable 

grove of willows. Northeast of the site is a commercial strip with a liquor store and restaurant. 

South of Westborough Boulevard, the site is a grassy, landscaped area, and is adjacent to the 

California Golf Club of San Francisco. North of Westborough Boulevard, the visual quality is 

considered low due to the commercial strip and surrounding commercial business. The visual 

quality is moderate south of Westborough Boulevard due to the landscaped area. 


A security fence around the site restricts unauthorized individuals from entering the dense 

wooded portion of the site between Arroyo Drive and Westborough Boulevard. Motorists, 

bicyclists, and pedestrians traveling along Arroyo Drive have obstructed views of the site as they 

approach the area due to existing vegetation. For motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians traveling 

along Westborough Boulevard, the site is visible. Motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians travelling 

eastbound along Arroyo Drive and Westborough Boulevard and northbound along West Orange 

Avenue also have views of the nearby commercial areas, which are characterized by commercial 

establishments such as supermarkets, restaurants, and furniture stores. Motorists, bicyclists, and 

pedestrians traveling westbound along Arroyo Drive and southbound along West Orange 

Avenue have views of the site in the context of a residential setting, with dense vegetation and 

green spaces. Motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians traveling westbound on Westborough 

Boulevard, a four-lane road, have views of the wooded and landscaped areas on either side of the 

road. Motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians traveling eastbound on Arroyo Drive or Westborough 

Boulevard, or northbound on West Orange Avenue, have views of the commercial area toward El 

Camino Real. The site has moderate viewer exposure and is visible to motorists, bicyclists, 

pedestrians, and customers of area stores, and nearby residents. 






The site has low to moderate visual quality because there are views of both wooded and 

landscaped areas, and of commercial parking lots and structures. Combined with the site’s 

moderate viewer exposure, it is considered to have low to moderate visual sensitivity. 



The San Bruno North site is a triangular-shaped area immediately east of I-280 and south of San 

Bruno Avenue. The site runs along the San Bruno Avenue West exit off-ramp from I-280, 

continues to its intersection with San Bruno Avenue West, and west along San Bruno Avenue 

West. The site is vegetated, with low grasses, trees, and dense underbrush in some locations. The 

visual quality is considered moderate because portions of the site are framed by a major road and 

freeway, but are landscaped and maintained, resulting in aesthetically pleasing views. 


Views from the freeway off-ramp offer glimpses to the east of the residential area bordering the 

site, and views across San Bruno Avenue West to the on-ramp for I-280. Motorists, bicyclists, and 

pedestrians traveling along San Bruno Avenue West would view the site as they pass. San Bruno 

Avenue West, a major four-lane divided road, lies immediately north of the site and slopes 

downhill to the east. There are residential areas to the south of San Bruno Avenue West, and 

commercial businesses to the north. The project site would be partially visible from the second 

stories of a few residents on Cedarwood Court and Pepper Drive. In the vicinity of the project 

site, wooded areas are located on either side of San Bruno Avenue West. The site has moderate 

viewer exposure along San Bruno Avenue West, and would be visible only briefly to motorists, 

bicyclists, and pedestrians. Motorists exiting I-280 would view the site for a longer duration. 

Therefore, this site is considered to have a moderate to high viewer exposure. 


The site has moderate visual quality because it is landscaped with trees and brush, offering a 

pleasant view for motorists exiting I-280 or motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians at the 

intersection of the site and San Bruno Avenue West. However, the duration of the views is brief 

for these viewers, and is quickly replaced with views of the underpass for I-280 or the 

commercial and residential development along San Bruno Avenue West. Therefore, the San 

Bruno North site is considered to have low to moderate visual sensitivity. 



The San Bruno South site extends through a driveway and parking area of Shelter Creek 

Condominiums, past single-family homes, the San Bruno Chinese Church, and the Peninsula 

High School. Along the back yards of single-family homes along Courtland Drive, the site is a 

grassy vegetated area. Some residences have views of San Francisco Bay. The views of the San 

Francisco Bay are exemplary representatives of the natural scenic amenities of the area, and offer 

views from the Peninsula across San Francisco Bay to the East Bay hills. Along the San Bruno 





Chinese Church, the site is vegetated with trees and shrubs. The site includes a portion of the 

northern parking lot of the San Bruno Chinese Church, and a portion of the Peninsula High 

School parking lot. The visual quality is considered moderate to high because the views of the 

San Bruno Church and Peninsula High School parking lot, which are typical and have a 

moderate quality, are augmented by the higher-quality views of San Francisco Bay and the hills 

beyond the foreground views. 


The San Bruno South site may be viewed from single-family dwellings, condominiums, and 

parking lots for the San Bruno Chinese Church and Peninsula High School. The church parking 

lot that would be used for staging and spoils storage is located on the side of the church and is 

not readily visible from Courtland Drive, but would be highly visible to churchgoers and others 

using educational facilities within the church building. The SFPUC ROW along the front of the 

church is visible from Courtland Drive, although it is somewhat screened by vegetation. The 

Peninsula High School parking lot is visible from Courtland Drive. Motorists, bicyclists, and 

pedestrians on Whitman Way have a view of the site upon immediate approach to the area. The 

site has low to moderate viewer exposure; it is visible only briefly as motorists, bicyclists, and 

pedestrians pass, and for longer periods for attendees of church activities and classes, high school 

attendees, and for residents along Courtland Drive. 


The site has moderate to high visual quality because it is vegetated with trees and shrubs, 

offering a pleasant view for area residents and those attending the church or high school. These 

viewers would have a longer exposure to the site than passing motorists, bicyclists, and 

pedestrians, whose exposure would be relatively short. These two combined sensitivities result in 

the site having a moderate visual sensitivity. 

Millbrae Site 


The Millbrae site is unpaved where it extends through residential yards, and a dense grove of 

trees is established on portions of the site. Staging and spoils areas would be on flat, grassy areas 

near the back yards of residences on Ridgewood Drive, along the SFPUC ROW, and on 

landscaped portions of the Green Hills Country Club golf course. Access routes requiring 

improvements would extend through the City of Millbrae open space area and the golf course. 

The visual quality is considered moderate to high. 


The project site is visible to patrons of the Green Hills Country Club and from the back yards of 

some residents on Ridgewood Drive and Hacienda Way. The site is visible to recreationists using 

the trail accessible from Lomita Avenue, and to residents at the end of the cul-de-sac on Bertocchi 

Lane. Passing motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians would have very limited views of the site at a 

few locations on Ridgewood Drive, Lomita Avenue, and Bertocchi Lane. The site has moderate 

viewer exposure. 






The site has moderate to high visual quality, and moderate viewer exposure. It is considered to 

have moderate to high visual sensitivity. 



The common staging area at the Baden Valve Lot in South San Francisco (shown on Figure 2-3) is 

located in an urbanized area. Surrounding land uses consist of commercial uses along El Camino 

Real to the east, a funeral home to the north, residential uses along Fairway Drive to the west, 

and the remainder of the Baden Value Lot to the south. The Baden Valve Lot contains numerous 

water supply valves and vaults, a water quality control building, storage sheds, an electrical 

transformer, other ancillary buildings and structures, and the Baden Pump Station (SF Planning, 

2008). The common staging area is an undeveloped portion of the Baden Valve Lot; it is covered 

with gravel and interspersed with vegetation and exposed soils. Because of the water supply 

facilities on the Baden Valve Lot, the visual quality of the common staging area is low. 


A security fence surrounds the common staging area and restricts unauthorized individuals from 

entering. The Garden Chapel Funeral Directors and associated parking lot are located to the 

north of the common staging area. For motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians traveling along El 

Camino Real, the site is partially obscured by large trees between the site and El Camino Real. 

Because of its elevated grade, the site is further separated from the street. El Camino Real is a sixlane 

road with a vegetated median in the middle. The site has low viewer exposure due to its 

obscured visibility to motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians. 


The site has low visual quality due to the water supply facilities, including parking lots and 

structures, and scattered vegetation. Combined with the site’s low viewer exposure, it is 

considered to have low visual sensitivity. 


5.3.2.1 Federal 

There are no applicable federal standards. 

5.3.2.2 State 

California’s Scenic Highway Program was adopted by the State legislature in 1963. Its purpose is to 

protect and enhance the natural scenic beauty of California highways and adjacent corridors, through 

special conservation treatment. The scenic highway program consists of eligible and officially 

designated routes. A highway may be designated as eligible for listing as a State scenic highway if it 

offers travelers scenic views of the natural landscape, largely undisrupted by development. Eligible 

routes achieve officially designated status when the local jurisdiction adopts ordinances to establish a 

scenic corridor protection program, and approval is received from Caltrans. 





I-280 is an officially designated State scenic highway (Caltrans, 2011) from its southern 

intersection with SR 17 in Santa Clara County, to the Millbrae city limits. From the Millbrae city 

limits until its intersection with Interstate 80, north of First Street in San Francisco, the route is 

eligible for designation as a State scenic highway but is not officially designated as such. The 

study area is greater than 1 and 0.6 mile from the officially designated portion of I-280 at the 

Millbrae and San Bruno sites, respectively. 

5.3.2.3 Local 


The San Mateo County General Plan contains policies regarding visual resources related to the 

protection of visual quality, protection of shorelines, protection of vegetation, and the appearance 

of rural and urban development (San Mateo County, 1986). 

Town of Colma 

The Town of Colma General Plan policies pertaining to visual resources focus on the preservation 

of selected tree masses, landscape features, and other scenic elements, and maintaining visual 

distinction from surrounding cities (Section 5.04.361) (Town of Colma, 2000). 


South San Francisco General Plan Guiding Policy 3.4 G-1 requires the development of El Camino 

Real as a boulevard that accommodates its role as a regional corridor, but with streetscape and 

development that provides identity to the street. It is the only policy pertaining to visual 

resources for the City of South San Francisco. 


Visual policies in the San Bruno General Plan are intended to help preserve and enhance the 

unique natural features that constitute San Bruno’s scenic roadways, as well as the visual quality 

of major gateways into the city and scenic corridors (City of San Bruno, 2009). General Plan 

policies address coordination with Caltrans, San Mateo County, and adjacent cities to maintain a 

consistent approach in applying scenic conservation standards in roadway design, 

improvements, and maintenance. 


Visual policies in the Millbrae General Plan are included in the Land Use Element. These policies 

primarily concern the preservation of neighborhood character and quality; impacts of new 

development on existing residential views; and the need for proper site planning and 

architectural review (City of Millbrae, 1998). 



The City and County of San Francisco has not formally adopted significance standards for 

impacts related to aesthetics and visual resources, but generally considers that implementation of 

the proposed project would have a significant impact if it were to: 





 

 

 

 

Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista; 

Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, 

and other features of the built or natural environment that contribute to a scenic public setting; 

Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings; or 

Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime 

views in the area or substantially affect other people or properties. 


This section evaluates potential impacts on visual resources that could occur during project 

construction and operations. For the purpose of the analysis, the visual sensitivity, as detailed in 

Section 5.3.1.4, is determined by a site’s visual quality combined with viewer exposure 

conditions. The visual quality of a given area results from the unique combination of natural 

landscape features including landform, water, and vegetation patterns, as well as built features 

such as buildings, roads, and other structures. 

The visual analysis is based on: field observations of the project area and surrounding vicinity; 

review of project development plans and drawings; review of existing California Environmental 

Quality Act documentation for other SFPUC projects on the Peninsula; evaluations of aerial and 

ground-level photographs of the project area; review of relevant planning documents; and the 

area’s visual quality and viewer exposure, the latter two of which, in combination, determine 

visual sensitivity. The evaluation of temporary or short-term visual impacts considers whether 

construction activities could substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the 

site or surrounding area, as well as the duration over which any such changes would take place, 

and exposure to viewers. Construction activities occurring in an area for less than 1 year typically 

have only temporary effects on visual quality, and are therefore generally considered to have a 

less-than-significant impact on visual quality. 

Permanent visual impacts were assessed based on the aforementioned visual quality and viewer 

exposure, which combine to determine visual sensitivity; and the project’s potential to substantially 

alter scenic vistas and scenic resources (through such actions as removing trees or permanently 

altering the landscape) in a manner that would adversely affect the visual quality of the area. 

Because of the nature of the proposed project, two of the significance criteria noted above are not 

applicable to the project. Therefore, an impact discussion is not provided for these topics for the 

reasons described below. 

PPSU project construction would have no impacts related to the following significance criterion: 

 

Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock 

outcroppings, and other features of the built or natural environment that contribute to a 

scenic public setting. Because damage to scenic resources such as trees, rock outcroppings, 

and other features of the built or natural environment would typically constitute a long-term 

effect, the potential for project implementation to damage scenic resources was evaluated 

solely as a long-term project operations impact. Therefore, this significance criterion is 

discussed below under Impact AE-3 only as it applies to project operational activities. 

PPSU project operations would have no impacts related to the following significance criterion: 





 

Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or 

nighttime views in the area or substantially affect other people or properties. No 

aboveground structures or lighting features would be built or remain during operation of the 

PPSU project. Therefore, operational impacts related to light or glare not applicable, and this 

significance criterion is discussed below under Impact AE-2 only as it applies to project 



Table 5.3-2 lists the proposed project’s visual impacts and significance determinations. 

Table 5.3-2 

Summary of Impacts – Aesthetics 


Impacts 

Colma 

South 




Bruno 

North 


Bruno 

South 

Millbrae 

Common 

Staging 

Area 

Impact AE-1: Project construction 

would not result in substantial 

adverse effects on scenic vistas or 

temporarily degrade the visual 

character of the site and its 

surroundings 

Impact AE-2: Project construction 

could result in significant impacts 

related to a new source of 

substantial light or glare. 

Impact AE-3: Project operations 

would not result in long-term 

adverse effects on scenic vistas or 

scenic resources, or degradation 

of the visual character of the site 

and its surroundings. 

Impact C-AE: Implementation of 

the proposed project would not 

result in a cumulatively 

considerable contribution to 

cumulative impacts on scenic 

vistas, scenic resources, visual 

character, or light and glare. 

LS LS LS LS LS LS 




Notes: 








Impact AE-1: Project construction would not result in substantial adverse effects on 

scenic vistas or temporarily degrade the visual character of the site and its surroundings. 

(Less than Significant) 

During construction at the Colma, South San Francisco, San Bruno South and Millbrae sites, 

open-trench techniques would be used, and the existing pipeline would be excavated and 

removed; trench backfill materials would be supported; and the new pipeline would be installed 

in the same general location as the existing pipeline. Open-trench construction would generally 

include the following activities: (1) mobilization of the site, including removal of vegetation and 

grading; (2) trench excavation and shoring, as necessary; (3) removal of existing pipe and 

installation of new pipe; (4) trench backfill and compacting; and (5) surface restoration and 

landscaping. Excavated soils, including topsoil, would be stockpiled during construction at each 

site, and may be reused as backfill and/or off-hauled for recycling or disposal. Jack-and-bore 

construction would also be used at the South San Francisco site, to place new pipe under 

Westborough Boulevard. At the San Bruno North site, two access pits would allow for 

stabilization of the existing pipeline, as described in more detail below. 

The PPSU project could result in temporary construction-related impacts on scenic vistas and 

resources, and the visual character of the project area and vicinity. Direct views of the project 

area, including views of construction work areas, are available from area roads. However, many 

of the views of the project areas contain sites with low visual quality and are absent of scenic 

vistas. Upon project completion, the construction contractor will return the SFPUC project site to 

its general condition before construction, including re-grading of the site and re-vegetation of 

disturbed areas. Potential impacts on scenic vistas and visual character as a result of construction 

activities are described below for each site. Long-term impacts related to tree removal and/or 

other alterations of the existing landscape are assessed under Impact AE-3. 

Colma Site 

Excavation activities and new pipeline installation would extend through a vacant parcel and a 

grassy sloped area at the rear of retail establishments, where typical uses include deliveries at 

Kohl’s department store and some worker or vehicle parking associated with a car rental agency. 

There are no scenic vistas in the vicinity of the Colma site; therefore, there would be no impacts 

to scenic vistas at this location. The low visual quality and lower viewer exposure to construction 

activities at the Colma site would result in a low visual sensitivity. Additionally, construction 

activities at the Colma site would be temporary, lasting for approximately 2 months. For these 

reasons, impacts to visual character due to construction at the Colma site would be less than 

significant. 


Excavation activities and new pipeline installation would extend from a nearby residence 

adjacent to the northern end of the site on Arroyo Drive; southward through a fenced, densely 

wooded area between the rear of a commercial strip and Westborough Boulevard; and south near 

the intersection of Westborough Boulevard and West Orange Avenue through a grassy, 





landscaped area. There are no scenic vistas in the vicinity of the South San Francisco site; 

therefore, there would be no impacts to scenic vistas at this location. 

Removal of approximately 20 willows would occur at the South San Francisco site to allow access 

to the pipeline, in accordance with the SFPUC’s Right-of-Way Integrated Vegetation 

Management Policy. The trees that would be removed are within the ROW along San Andreas 

Pipeline No. 2, north of Westborough Boulevard and behind a commercial strip. This area is 

considered to have moderate visual sensitivity because of the low visual quality due to the 

adjacent commercial strip and surrounding commercial businesses, and the moderate viewer 

exposure for motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians, customers of area stores, and residents as they 

pass along Westborough Boulevard. Therefore, a significant impact on the existing visual 

character would not result from tree removal activities. 

At the South San Francisco site, jack-and-bore construction would also occur with pits excavated 

at either end of the bore. The pits would be approximately 20 feet wide, up to 50 feet long, and up 

to 30 feet deep (see Figures 3-3 and 5.3-3 for pit locations). The areas where the proposed boring 

pits would be located are considered to have moderate visual sensitivity because they would be 

located in wooded and landscaped areas and have moderate viewer exposure for motorists, 

bicyclists, pedestrians, customers of area stores, and residents as they pass along Westborough 

Boulevard. 

The offsite staging and spoils area would be located in a parking lot which has low visual 

sensitivity due to the low visual quality and moderate viewer exposure. Because construction 

activities at the South San Francisco site would be temporary, lasting for approximately 

3 months, and due to the low to moderate visual sensitivity at this site, impacts on visual 

character would be less than significant. 


The San Bruno North site lies immediately east of I-280 and south of San Bruno Avenue West. 

The San Bruno Avenue West exit off-ramp from I-280 extends along the site and the backyards of 

several residences are adjacent to the site. The site is vegetated, with low grasses, trees, and dense 

underbrush in some locations. Project construction activities at the San Bruno North site would 

include excavation of two access pits (see Figure 4.1-5 for pit locations), removal of portions of 

the tunnel roof, and injection of grouting between the pipeline and the tunnel, or the installation 

of pipe stabilization structures within the tunnel. The access pits would be approximately 10 feet 

wide by 10 feet long. The precise locations of the pits would be determined during final design. It 

is estimated that the roof of the tunnel is 10 feet below ground surface. 

The I-280 scenic corridor is more than 0.6 mile from the San Bruno North site. A few landscaping 

trees would be removed and subsequently replaced. This would have no effect on this scenic 

corridor, because the distance and the higher elevation of I-280 would prevent motorists from 

having views of construction at the site. There are no other scenic vistas in the vicinity of the San 

Bruno North site. For these reasons, there would be no impacts to scenic vistas at this location. 

The San Bruno North site has moderate visual quality because of the landscaped area that is 

visible to northbound motorists exiting off of I-280 at Sneath Avenue/San Bruno Avenue West. 

Motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians along San Bruno Avenue West or accessing the northbound 





onramp to I-280 at San Bruno Avenue West would have direct views of construction. The 

intersection of San Bruno Avenue West and the I-280 on- and off-ramps are controlled by a 

stoplight, which could result in an increase in the duration of views to the project site by roadway 

users. Due to the distance from the scenic highway, and the lower elevation of the San Bruno 

North site, motorists continuing on I-280 would not have views of construction. 

People in the project area (e.g., motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians, residents, and business owners 

and visitors) would be subject to views of the construction for a short period of time. Visual 

quality and sensitivity at this site would be low, while viewer exposure would be moderate to 

high. For these reasons, and because construction would be temporary, lasting for 1 month, 

impacts on visual character due to construction at the San Bruno North site would be less than 

significant. 


Construction at the San Bruno South site would include excavation and installation of new 

pipelines, extending from north of the San Bruno Chinese Church, past the rear lots of residences 

along Courtland Drive and the Park Plaza Apartments, to the Shelter Creek Condominiums. 

Additionally, staging and spoils areas would extend south to include frontage along the San 

Bruno Church and its northern parking lot, and a portion of the peninsula High School parking 

lot. The San Bruno South site would not be visible from either the I-280 scenic corridor or the 

Skyline Boulevard scenic corridor due to the distance from the site to the scenic corridor 

(approximately 0.6 mile), and because of intervening topography and landscaping features. No 

trees within these scenic corridors would be affected. There are no scenic vistas in the vicinity of 

the San Bruno South site except for views of San Francisco Bay and East Bay hills in the distance, 

which would not be disrupted. For these reasons, there would be no impacts to scenic vistas at 

this location. 

Construction may be viewed from area motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians, and residents of or 

visitors to the Shelter Creek Condominiums, Park Plaza Apartments, the San Bruno Chinese 

Church, the Peninsula High School, Courtland Avenue, and Whitman Way. At the residential 

areas, viewer exposure would be moderate to low because construction would occur in a parking 

lot access area of the Shelter Creek Condominiums, adjacent to the rear of the Park Plaza 

Apartments; and at the rear lots of residences along Courtland Drive, where existing vegetation 

or fencing would partially obstruct views of the construction. The construction zone contains a 

grassy hill side that is briefly visible as motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians use Whitman Way. 

The SFPUC ROW between the church and Courtland Drive used for staging and spoils would be 

visible from the church, Peninsula High School, and Courtland Drive in the vicinity of the site. 

Viewer exposure would be high at the church and high school. The San Bruno South site has a 

moderate to high visual quality due to the trees and shrubs and from some vantage points, views 

of the San Francisco Bay and hills beyond. Visual sensitivity is also moderate to high due to the 

aforementioned landscaping and because some views of construction would be of longer 

duration (approximately 9 months). Because higher viewer sensitivity would primarily occur at 

the church and high school, where viewers are intermittent and views are of staging and spoils 

areas instead of construction; because most residents would primarily have obstructed views 

(rear views, fenced views, and parking lot views); and because views of construction would be 

temporary (less than 1 year), impacts to visual character would be less than significant. 





Millbrae Site 

Excavation and pipeline installation at the Millbrae site would occur from the northwestern 

portion of the Green Hills Country Club golf course driving range, extending west through a 

dense grove of trees and terminating at Ridgewood Drive. Flat, grassy areas near the back yards 

of residences on Ridgewood Drive, along the SFPUC ROW, and on landscaped portions of the 

Green Hills Country Club golf course would be used for staging and spoils storage. Access routes 

requiring improvements would extend through the City of Millbrae open space area and the golf 

course. There are no scenic vistas in the vicinity of the Millbrae site; therefore, there would be no 

impacts on scenic vistas at this location. 

The grove of trees within the SFPUC ROW that extends through the northern portion of the golf 

course would be removed in accordance with the SFPUC’s Right-of-Way Integrated Vegetation 

Management Policy. This dense grove of approximately 300 trees, dominated by eucalyptus and 

inclusive of some coast live oaks, would be removed from the ROW to provide access to the 

Sunset Supply Branch Pipeline. The tree-removal activity would not generally be visible to the 

public because removal would occur in the grove located between private residential backyards 

and the private Green Hills Country Club golf course. The trees to be removed would be along 

the periphery of a larger grove of trees that would remain. This grove is considered to have a 

moderate to high visual sensitivity due to the area’s high visual quality, but moderate viewer 

exposure because the trees are located behind resident backyards and at the edge of the Green 

Hills Country Club. 

The access route through the City of Millbrae open space area may require tree trimming along 

the trail from Lomita Avenue and the filling of potholes on the trail. The trail may be widened in 

one location, which would result in the removal of approximately four trees. For access from the 

Bertocchi Lane cul-de-sac, removal and/or modification to a portion of an approximately 3-foothigh 

retaining wall, plating over the existing culvert, and compaction of soils may occur and 

some trimming of native oaks may also be required. The trail has a high visual quality and 

moderate viewer exposure from recreationalists on the trail and residents at the end of the 

Bertocchi Lane cul-de-sac. Construction would be visible to trail users; briefly to motorists, 

bicyclists, and pedestrians as they pass the trail’s northern access point on Lomita Avenue; and to 

motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians, and residents on Bertocchi Lane. This area has moderate to high 

visual sensitivity. 

For access from Larkspur Drive through the Green Hills Country Club golf course, the chain-link 

fence at the end of the Larkspur Drive cul-de-sac would be temporarily removed, and the cement 

culvert would be covered by steel plates. These construction elements would be visible to 

motorists, cyclists, pedestrians, and residents on Larkspur Drive and to persons using the golf 

course. The visual quality is considered moderate as it contains aesthetically pleasing views of 

the golf course and views of the chain-link fence and the paved end of the cul-de-sac. This 

combined with the moderate viewer exposure due to the limited number of passing motorists, 

bicyclists, pedestrians, and recreationists at the golf course results in a moderate visual sensitivity 

in the vicinity of Larkspur Drive and the Green Hills Country Club golf course. 

Along the access route through the SFPUC ROW from Ridgewood Drive, existing small 

structures, fences and landscaping, and other encroachments are located within the SFPUC ROW. 

They would be removed from the side yards of 1100 and 1094 Ridgewood Drive prior to 





commencement of construction. These construction activities would be visible to residents of 

these two homes, because construction would be immediately adjacent to them. They would also 

be visible to motorists, bicyclists, or pedestrians on Ridgewood Drive. A permanent retaining 

wall with approximately 10-foot footings would be constructed under the existing backyard fence 

at 1094 Ridgewood Drive to stabilize the slope prior to excavation of the pipeline. This 

construction would be visible from nearby backyards. The area’s visual quality is high, but the 

exposure conditions, except for residents of 1100 and 1094 Ridgewood Drive, are low because 

motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians would pass perpendicular to the construction area, and 

their views of construction would be limited. The visual sensitivity of this portion of the site is 

considered moderate. 

For all of the reasons described above, and because construction would be temporary, lasting for 

4.5 months, impacts to visual character would be less than significant. 


The common staging area in South San Francisco would be used for the duration of the project 

construction at all of the PPSU sites (approximately 12 months). This staging area would be used 

for temporary construction office trailers and worker parking. Trailers would be installed on the 

site, and gravel would be placed in areas used for worker parking. No ground-disturbing 

activities related to the PPSU project are proposed within the common staging area. The 

construction features that would be added to the site are consistent with the site’s current layout 

and use. As described above, the common staging area is an undeveloped portion of the Baden 

Valve Lot with the other portion of the lot containing water supply facilities. The common 

staging area is surrounded by chain-link fencing and is partially obscured by large trees and is at 

an elevated grade. The staging area features are consistent with the site’s current use, and the 

area is partially obscured from views from area motorists, bicyclists, or pedestrians. 

There are no scenic vistas in the vicinity of the common staging area; therefore, there would be no 

impacts on scenic vistas at this location. The site has a low visual sensitivity due to the low visual 

quality of existing facilities at the site, and low viewer exposure due to being partially obscured 

by elevation and vegetation. The addition of the trailers and parking of cars would be consistent 

with current site usage and would not affect scenic vistas or degrade the visual character of the 

site and its surroundings. Therefore, the use of the common staging area would result in lessthan-significant 

impacts to visual character. 

Impact AE-2: Project construction could result in significant impacts related to a new 

source of substantial light or glare. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) 

As discussed in Section 3.8.9 in Chapter 3, Project Description, the majority of construction 

activities would occur on weekdays from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m.; however, weekend construction work 

may be necessary. Additionally, nighttime construction may be required at the San Bruno North 

site to minimize traffic conflicts. Nighttime activities would also include limited 24-hour 

pumping for dewatering of the pipelines at a few locations. Lighting would not be required for 

nighttime dewatering activities, but would be required for nighttime construction at the San 

Bruno North site. 





Daytime construction activities would not be anticipated to produce substantial light or glare; if 

lighting is used during the day, it would be directed toward areas of excavation, and would 

likely not be substantially different from the natural daytime condition. However, because 

lighting could be visible from the adjacent residences as well as from I-280, impacts from lighting 

or glare during nighttime construction at the San Bruno North site could result in a significant 

impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measure M-AE-2: Site-Specific Construction Lighting 

Plan would reduce light and glare impacts by requiring the SFPUC’s contractor to develop a sitespecific 

lighting plan that includes locations and methods to minimize light spillover and glare 

impacts. In addition, implementation of Mitigation Measure M-LU-1b: Minimum 2-Week 

Notice of Construction Activities to Homes with Significant Unavoidable Noise Impacts, 

which requires 2-week advance notification of construction activities to adjacent residences at the 

San Bruno North site (among other sites), would alert residents to upcoming nighttime 

construction activities, and provide a toll-free number for reporting report problems regarding 

construction-related complaints. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with 

mitigation at the San Bruno North site. Impacts at the Colma, South San Francisco, San Bruno 

South, and Millbrae sites and the common staging area would be less than significant because no 

nighttime lighting is proposed for these sites; and daytime lighting, if needed, would not create 

new sources of substantial light or glare. 

Mitigation Measure M-AE-2: Site-Specific Construction Lighting Plan 

This mitigation measure applies to the San Bruno North site only. The SFPUC shall 

require the contractor to develop and implement a site-specific nighttime lighting plan. A 

qualified lighting professional shall prepare the plan, which shall specify lighting sources 

for nighttime operations, and require that lighting be shielded and directed specifically 

onto work areas to minimize light spillover. The plan shall also provide for light source 

monitoring to ensure that feasible adjustments are made as necessary to provide 

maximum shielding during all phases of construction. The contractor shall submit the 

plan to the SFPUC for review and approval prior to commencing nighttime construction 

operations, at which time the plan shall be implemented continuously until the end of 

nighttime construction. 

5.3.3.5 Operational Impacts and Mitigation Measures 

Impact AE-3: Project operations would not result in long-term adverse effects on scenic 

vistas or scenic resources, or degradation of the visual character of the site and its 

surroundings. (Less than Significant) 

Once constructed, the proposed project pipelines would be underground and would not be 

visible. The only permanent aboveground components of the PPSU project that could affect 

visual character are tree and vegetation removal. 

As part of construction mobilization activities for the proposed project, the project sites would be 

cleared of vegetation and debris and then graded, as necessary, and in compliance with the 

SFPUC’s Right-of-Way Integrated Vegetation Management Policy. At both the South San 

Francisco and Millbrae sites, dense groves of trees would be removed. At all other sites, only a 

few trees may be removed. As described in Chapter 3, Section 3.8.1, Pipeline Replacement and 





Stabilization, upon the completion of construction activities, the SFPUC’s contractor(s) would 

replace topsoil in disturbed areas, which would then be re-vegetated with native plant seed mix. 

In accordance with the SFPUC’s Right-of-Way Integrated Vegetation Management Policy, native 

non-woody plants and scrubs would be planted within the ROW; however, trees generally would 

not be replanted along the pipeline, because their roots could damage the pipeline. Vegetation 

would be monitored for up to a year to ensure it has become established. Because vegetation 

would be replaced and would appear generally as under existing conditions at the Colma, San 

Bruno North, San Bruno South sites, project impacts would be less than significant at these sites. 

At the common staging area, the project would not result in substantial visual changes, and 

impacts would also be less than significant. 

However, at the South San Francisco site, trees would be permanently removed at the 

impenetrable grove of primarily willow trees (approximately 20 trees). This grove, as viewed 

from Westborough Boulevard, is considered to have moderate visual sensitivity, resulting from 

the low visual quality due to adjacent commercial strip and surrounding commercial businesses 

and the moderate viewer exposure for motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians, customers of area stores, 

and residents as they pass. The grove as viewed from Arroyo Drive is viewed in the context of a 

dense grove of trees in the vicinity of a residential street and a commercial area to the east. The 

visual quality of this area is also low due to the commercial strip and surrounding commercial 

businesses. Because the grove of trees has low visual quality and moderate viewer exposure, 

resulting in low to moderate visual sensitivity, the removal of the trees and the maintenance of 

the ROW would result in less-than-significant impacts. 

At the Millbrae site, approximately 300 trees within a grove of eucalyptus and oak trees would be 

removed. These trees are located beyond the backyards of the residences on Ridgewood Drive, 

within the SFPUC ROW that extends to the fairway at the Green Hills Country Club. The grove 

of trees is a potential scenic resource. Viewer exposure from the Ridgewood Drive backyards is 

low to moderate, as the grove is located downhill from the homes and at a slight distance. The 

removal of trees in the grove would result in a less-than-significant impact on the scenic 

resources or visual character of the project site that is visible from the Ridgewood Drive homes, 

because only a portion of the grove would be removed downslope from backyard views; the 

remainder of the grove would remain visible, and the overall visual character of the backyard 

views would remain relatively similar to existing views. The grove of trees is also visible from a 

portion of the Country Club along the golf fairway. Viewer exposure from the country club 

fairway is moderate; in relation to the golf fairway, the grove of trees is along the perimeter of the 

property. The removal of a portion of the trees would be visible to those accessing the fairway. 

However, as described above, only a portion of the grove would be removed and the remainder 

of the grove would remain visible. The overall visual quality of the area, including the mature 

trees bordering the golf course, would remain essentially intact. Therefore, tree removal in this 

area would not adversely impact the visual character of the area, and the removal of the trees 

would be a less-than-significant impact. 






Impact C-AE: Implementation of the proposed project would not result in a 

cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative impacts on scenic vistas, scenic 

resources, visual character, or light and glare. (Less than Significant) 

The geographic scope of potential cumulative impacts on aesthetic resources encompasses the 

project work areas and areas that would contain views of both the project and other cumulative 

projects. The aesthetic and visual quality of the area of analysis for cumulative aesthetic impacts has 

been substantially affected by past activities, including urban and roadway development, and, as 

such, the visual quality of the area has been changed over time. The cumulative projects listed in 

Table 5.1-1 are within the vicinity of the PPSU project; however, only the Regional Groundwater 

Storage and Recovery (GSR) project is located in close enough proximity to contribute to 

cumulative aesthetics impacts in combination with the PPSU project, as discussed below. 

The GSR project has the potential to have effects that could combine with the PPSU project to 

result in cumulative visual impacts during construction, because both the GSR and the PPSU 

Colma site are located within the same viewshed on the SFPUC ROW south of Serramonte 

Boulevard between Kohl’s department store and a car dealership. Furthermore, the GSR project 

would be under construction during the entire PPSU construction period. The GSR project would 

include construction of a groundwater production well facility, including chemical treatment and 

filtration; underground distribution piping; and aboveground or underground utility 

connections. New pipelines would be installed below ground using standard open-cut 

construction methods, similar to the PPSU project. Site preparation for the GSR project would 

include vegetation clearing and stockpiling on site; grading; and installation of a gravel base rock 

for equipment support. After construction is complete, well sites would be restored to their 

general pre-construction conditions in accordance with the SFPUC’s Vegetation Management 

Policy. Construction equipment for these activities could include mounted drill rigs, backhoes, 

excavators, bulldozers, front-end loaders, compactors, concrete trucks/pump trucks, trailers/flat 

beds/low boys, water trucks, contractor vehicles/pickup trucks, jackhammers, asphalt pavers, 

steam rollers, and hydraulic boring rigs. 

The GSR project has identified an alternate location for a well facility on a vacant strip of land 

adjacent to Standard Plumbing Supply and Cypress Lawn Cemetery in Colma, south of Collins 

Avenue; this was also identified as a potential staging area for the PPSU project. One or more 

geotechnical borings may be needed at this location as part of project construction, if this 

alternate location is used. 

As described in Section 5.3.1.4, the Colma site has low visual quality and low viewer exposure, 

because it is visible only briefly as motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians, or customers of the area stores 

pass by or park. The site is therefore considered to have low visual sensitivity. The combined 

adverse impacts of construction are primarily limited to the rear of the buildings, and the 

coincident construction period for the two projects is only approximately 2 months. For all of these 

reasons, the cumulative impacts on visual character and light and glare during construction would 

be less than significant. There are no scenic vistas in the vicinity of the Colma site; therefore, there 

would be no cumulative impacts to scenic vistas at this location. Cumulative impacts related to 

scenic resources, visual character, or light and glare during operation would also be less than 





significant, as there would be no permanent degradation of scenic resources or visual character at 

the Colma site or the GSR facility in Colma, and no permanent sources of light or glare. 

The GSR project has also identified a well facility and an alternate well facility location in South 

San Francisco northwest of the proposed PPSU common staging area. (A third GSR well facility 

would be constructed in the PPSU project vicinity near the South San Francisco site, on El 

Camino Real north of Chestnut Avenue, but would not be within the project’s viewshed; 

therefore, it is not considered further in this cumulative analysis.) Construction of the GSR wells 

near the common staging area would be similar to that described for Colma, above, except that 

(1) construction would not occur in the same location as the PPSU project; (2) the primary well 

location would be somewhat smaller than at Colma, and (3) at the alternate location, the well 

would be fenced but there would be no chemical treatment or filtration, and the associated pump 

would be submersible rather than aboveground. As described in Section 5.3.1.4, the common 

staging area has low visual quality, and virtually no views or viewers except of vehicles entering 

or exiting the site. There are no scenic vistas in the vicinity of the common staging area; therefore, 

there would be no cumulative impacts to scenic vistas at this location. Cumulative impacts 

related to scenic resources, visual character, or light and glare during operation would also be 

less than significant, because there would be no permanent degradation of scenic resources or 

visual character at the common staging area or the GSR facility in South San Francisco, and no 

permanent sources of light or glare. 

Therefore, cumulative impacts resulting from implementation of the proposed project along with 

the GSR project would be less than significant. 


Caltrans (California Department of Transportation), 2011. California Scenic Highway Guidelines. 

Available online at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic/guidelines/scenic_hwy_ 

guidelines_04-12-2012.pdf. Accessed on May 17, 2011. 

City of Millbrae, 1998. City of Millbrae General Plan, Chapter 3, Land Use Element. Adopted 

November 24, 1998. 

City of San Bruno, 2009. City of San Bruno General Plan. Adopted March 24, 2009. 

City of South San Francisco, 1999. City of South San Francisco General Plan, Chapter 2, Land Use 

and Chapter 3, Planning Sub-Areas Element. 

San Mateo County, 1986. County of San Mateo General Plan. Adopted November 1986. 




Town of Colma, 1999. Town of Colma General Plan, Chapter 5.02, Land Use Element. Adopted 

June 1999. 

Town of Colma, 2000. Town of Colma General Plan, Chapter 5.04, Open Space/Conservation 

Element. Adopted April 2000. 






This section evaluates the potential for the proposed Peninsula Pipelines Seismic Upgrade (PPSU) 

project to affect population and housing by displacing residents and housing units, adding new 

housing units to the existing housing stock, or attracting new population to the area, thereby 

creating demand for additional housing resources in the project area. The overall growthinducement 

effects of the PPSU project are analyzed in Section 6.1, Growth Inducement. 

5.4.1 Setting 

The project would be constructed at five sites in San Mateo County, located in the Town of Colma 

and the cities of South San Francisco, San Bruno and Millbrae; as well as in unincorporated San 

Mateo County on the San Francisco peninsula, immediately south of the City and County of San 

Francisco. San Mateo County is one of nine counties in the San Francisco Bay Area. The area had 

a region-wide population of approximately 7.3 million in 2010, and its population is expected to 

increase by approximately 19 percent to exceed 8.7 million by 2030 (ABAG, 2009). San Mateo 

County’s population is expected to grow at a rate similar to the regional population growth rate 

during that period. 

Table 5.4-1 below presents population and housing data from the decennial census for San Mateo 

County and the four communities in which the five project sites are located. In 2010, San Mateo 

County had a total population of 718,451, with just over 271,000 housing units and an average 

household size of 2.72 (U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 2012). Of the four 

cities where sites are located, South San Francisco has the largest population and housing stock, 

and Colma has the smallest resident population and smallest number of housing units. Average 

household sizes in the four cities are comparable to the countywide average of 2.72, although 

they range from 2.65 in Millbrae to 3.13 in Colma. 

Table 5.4-1 

Population and Housing Data (2010) 

Colma 


Francisco Millbrae San Bruno 


Mateo 

County 

Population 1,792 63,632 21,532 41,114 718,451 

Housing Units 586 21,184 8,372 15,356 271,031 

Average 

Household Size 

3.13 3.01 2.65 2.77 2.72 

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 2012. 

The San Francisco Bay Area labor force has fluctuated over the past decade, from 3.74 million 

persons in 2000 to 3.54 million persons in 2004-2005, to 3.68 million persons in 2009. The number 

of employed residents in the San Francisco Bay Area peaked in 2000, at 3.61 million, but declined 

by 8.4 percent, to 3.31 million workers in 2009. During the same time period, unemployment rates 





have increased sharply in the region, from around 4 percent in 2000, to 10.1 percent in 2009 (SF 

Planning, 2010). 


There are no federal, State, or local regulations governing population and housing that apply to 

the proposed project. 




impacts related to population and housing, but generally considers that implementation of the 

proposed project would have a significant impact if it were to: 

 

 

 

Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new 

homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other infrastructure); 

Displace substantial numbers of existing housing units or create demand for additional 

housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing; or 

Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement 

housing elsewhere. 


Due to the nature of the proposed project, which would not create or eliminate any housing and 

which has limited demand for construction workers in a region with an ample labor force, there 

would be no construction or operational impacts related to the following significance criteria. 

Therefore, an impact discussion is not provided for these topics for the reasons described below: 

 

Induce Substantial Population Growth in an area, either directly or indirectly. Section 

3.8.8, Project Workforce and Construction Vehicle Parking, describes the limited size of 

workforce requirements for the proposed PPSU project, which would be implemented over a 

period of 12 months, from 2014 to 2015. During that time, work crews of up to 20 personnel 

each would be engaged in construction activities. A maximum of four sites would be under 

construction simultaneously, as shown on Figure 3.12 in Chapter 3, Project Description, 

requiring a total of up to 80 personnel. Given the size and nature of the San Francisco Bay 

Area labor force, and the anticipated availability of skilled construction workers, it is 

expected that the existing regional labor force would readily meet these construction 

workforce requirements, and the project would not result in an influx of construction 

workers from outside the region to fill these jobs. Existing San Francisco Public Utilities 

Commission (SFPUC) staff would conduct the long-term operation and maintenance of the 

project, and additional personnel would not be required for operations. Furthermore, the 

project would not result in the construction of new homes or businesses in the area or 

directly remove existing constraints to development in the area. Therefore, the project would 

not result in any impacts to the local population. Therefore, this significance criterion is not 

applicable to the PPSU project and is not discussed further. 





 

 

Displace Substantial Numbers of Housing Units or Create Demand for Additional 

Housing. The project would not displace any existing housing units, or, as described above, 

attract new workers to the region to fill either temporary construction jobs or permanent 

operation jobs. Therefore, this significance criterion is not applicable to the PPSU project and 

is not discussed further. 

Displace Substantial Numbers of People. The proposed project, which would improve the 

SFPUC’s water supply infrastructure, would be located in the existing SFPUC right-of-way 

(ROW). The project would not result in changes in land use in the ROW or ROW vicinity and 

would not displace substantial numbers of people. Therefore, this significance criterion is not 

applicable to the PPSU project and is not discussed further. 

5.4.3.3 Construction and Operations Impacts and Mitigation Measures 

As described above, the PPSU project would not result in an influx of construction workers, 

remove or create housing units, or directly remove existing constraints to growth in the study 

area, which is predominantly comprised of built-out suburban neighborhoods along the San 

Francisco Peninsula. Therefore, there would be no impact to population or housing resources, 

and no mitigation measures are required. 


Because the PPSU project would not result in any project-specific impacts related to population 

and housing, implementation of the project would not result in cumulative impacts or contribute 

to cumulative impacts resulting from other projects planned for the project vicinity, and there 

would be no cumulative impact. 


ABAG (Association of Bay Area Governments), 2009. Building Momentum: Projections and 

Priorities 2009. San Francisco Bay Area Population, Household, and Job Forecasts. August. 

SF Planning (City and County of San Francisco Planning Department), 2010. San Francisco 

Commerce & Industry Inventory 2010. October. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 2012. ACS Demographic and Housing 

Estimates, 2006-2010 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates and San Mateo County 

QuickFacts. Available online at http://factfinder2.census.gov/. Accessed July 5, 2012. 






This section describes cultural and paleontological resources within the proposed Peninsula 

Pipelines Seismic Upgrade (PPSU) project area, and identifies and assesses the potential impacts 

to these resources that could occur with implementation of the proposed project. Mitigation 

measures to avoid or reduce adverse impacts are identified, as appropriate. 

5.5.1 Setting 

Cultural resources are broadly defined as buildings, sites, structures, landscapes, or objects, 

which may have historical, architectural, archaeological, cultural, or scientific importance 

(McGimsey and Davis, 1977; NPS, 1998). Under the California Environmental Quality Act 

(CEQA), impacts to paleontological resources are also addressed under the rubric of cultural 

resources (see CEQA Appendix G checklist). 

5.5.1.1 CEQA Area of Potential Effects 

For the purpose of environmental review under CEQA, a CEQA Area of Potential Effects 

(C-APE) for each resource category (i.e., archaeology, historic architecture, paleontology) was 

developed and used for this analysis. The use of C-APE as presented herein is based on the 

concept and definition presented in Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Tile 36 800.16(d), where 

the: 

Area of potential effects means the geographic area or areas within which an 

undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of 

historic properties, if any such properties exist. The area of potential effects is 

influenced by the scale and nature of an undertaking and may be different for 

different kinds of effects caused by the undertaking. 

Although the definition of an area of potential effects as found in 36 CFR 800.16 (d) specifically 

addresses potential effects to “historic properties” (i.e., National Register-listed or eligible 

resources), the term is expanded herein to aid in the identification of potential impacts to cultural 

and paleontological resources as required by CEQA. 

The PPSU project C-APE for archaeology and paleontology are similar in that the approved 

C-APE addresses only direct effects and is confined to those areas where ground-disturbing 

activities resulting from project implementation would occur. For the current undertaking, the 

direct impact areas were confined primarily to the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission 

(SFPUC) Right-of-Way (ROW), although some staging and spoil areas on adjacent parcels were 

also included within the C-APE. 

The PPSU C-APE for historic architectural resources must also take into account indirect effects 

of construction-related vibrations or atmospheric intrusions which could impact historic 

structures. Therefore, the C-APE as it pertains to historic architectural resources is larger than the 

C-APE for either archaeological or paleontological resources. For the PPSU project, the C-APE for 

historic architectural resources includes the direct-impact area within the ROW, as well as the 

entire parcel through which these particular portions of the ROW passes. For the temporary 





staging and spoils areas outside of the SFPUC ROW, only the portion of the parcel where the 

staging and spoils areas would occur were included in the C-APE for historic architectural 

resources. As permanent, aboveground, project-related features are not proposed, other indirect 

affects to the historic setting of cultural resources are not anticipated. 

It should be noted that no ground-disturbing activities or permanent improvements are proposed 

for the common staging area. The project-related activities proposed at this location would not 

affect cultural or paleontological resources, and the Baden Valve Lot was not included within the 

C-APE for the PPSU project. Additionally, the common staging area is not further considered in 

this section. It should be noted, however, that impacts to cultural resources resulting from 

proposed improvements at the Baden Valve Lot were addressed in the Baden and San Pedro 

Valve Lots Improvement Project Mitigated Negative Declaration (SF Planning, 2008a). The Baden 

and San Pedro Valve Lots Improvement project included both ground-disturbing construction 

and the introduction of permanent improvements, none of which were found to result in impacts 

to known cultural or paleontological resources. 

Discussions of the cultural and paleontological setting of the PPSU project area are presented in 

the individual technical reports prepared for the project (URS, 2012a; URS, 2012b; URS, 2012c; 

URS, 2012d; Sonoma State University, 2012; Sonoma State University, 2013). 1 Presented below are 

summary regional overviews of paleontology, prehistory, ethnography, and history, organized in 

basic chronological order. Following the background discussions, cultural resources inventory 

efforts and results are discussed with relationship to the PPSU project components in which they 

are located. 

Paleontology 

Paleontological resources include fossils, fossil localities, and stratigraphic units which contain 

the preserved remains or traces of fossil organisms. Fossils may be found as individual specimens 

or as assemblages of many organisms. Of particular importance are fossils that are unique or 

unusual and that may make significant contributions to taxonomy, systematics, evolutionary 

theory, paleoecology, or stratigraphy, or enhance our understanding of regional geologic history. 

The potential for an area to contain significant paleontological resources is determined by the 

area’s geology. Full geologic descriptions including regional geologic mapping is found in the 

paleontological technical report from which the following text is derived (URS, 2012c). 

The geology in and around the C-APE, as defined for paleontological resources, is primarily 

composed of six units: Cretaceous and Jurassic Franciscan Complex basement rock, Pleistocene 

and Pliocene Merced Formation, Late Pleistocene Colma Formation, Pleistocene slope debris and 

ravine fill deposits. Recent alluvial deposits, and historic artificial fill (Pampeyan, 1994; Brabb et 

al., 1998; Bonilla, 1998; FWLA, 2011) are also common in the area. 

The principal basement rock on the San Francisco Peninsula is the Mesozoic (Jurassic and 

Cretaceous) Franciscan Complex (KJfm), which commonly consists of greenstone, sandstone, 

1 Cultural resources technical reports prepared for the project are on file and available for public review at the Planning 

Department, 1650 Mission Street, Suite 400, as part of Case No. 2011.0123E, except for the confidential Historic Context 

and Archaeological Survey Report and the confidential appendix for the Paleontological Resources Survey Report. 





serpentinite, and mélange, a mixture of lithologies typically in a sheared, clay-rich matrix 

(Pampeyan, 1994; FWLA, 2011). 

The Merced Formation (Qtm) unconformably overlies, or is in fault contact with, Franciscan 

Complex rocks within the study area. It principally consists of weakly lithified to well-cemented, 

thinly bedded to massive sandstone and siltstone, with minor claystone and conglomerate with 

shell hash, deposited in shallow marine to estuarine and nonmarine coastal environments 

(FWLA, 2011). The age of the Merced Formation is uncertain, but it is likely Pliocene—between 

about 1.8 million years old and about 400,000 years old (FWLA, 2011), with the uppermost beds 

along the coast being younger than approximately 400,000 years (Kennedy, 2002). Clean to silty, 

fine-grained, poorly consolidated micaceous sands are characteristic of the upper Merced 

deposits, whereas nonmicaceous shallow marine sands and silts are characteristic of the lower 

Merced. 

The Colma Formation (Qc) overlies Merced Formation strata at and near the coast, and has a 

mapped outcrop extent similar to the Merced Formation (Pampeyan, 1994; Brabb et al., 1998; 

FWLA, 2011). The Colma Formation as described at and near the coast consists of poorly 

consolidated to unconsolidated sand and silt, and represents a variety of mostly nonmarine 

environments, including nearshore, foreshore, and backshore deposits. The age of the Colma 

Formation is late Pleistocene, between about 130,000 and 11,000 years old (FWLA, 2011; Kennedy, 

2002). Inland from the coast, including within the pipeline fault crossing site area, the Colma 

Formation is less well characterized, and at its southern mapped extent appears to be laterally 

continuous with deposits characterized as “older alluvium” (Brabb et al., 1998). 

Pleistocene slope debris and ravine fill deposits (Qsr) in the study area occur above the Colma 

Formation but below alluvium and artificial fill deposits. Slope debris and ravine fill deposits 

generally consist of stony silty to sandy clay; locally silty to clayey sand or gravel; yellowishorange 

to medium gray, and unstratified to poorly stratified. Where it overlies the Colma 

Formation, it is commonly a silty to clayey sand or gravel (Bonilla, 1998). 

Recent alluvium deposits in the study area consist of alluvial fan and fluvial (Qal/Qhaf), landslide 

(Ql), and levee deposits (Qhl). These deposits are composed of unconsolidated mixtures of sands, 

silts, clays and gravels found along hill slopes and stream channels. The recent alluvial deposits 

are generally less than 20 feet in thickness and overlay slope debris and ravine fill deposits, 

Colma and Merced Formations, and the Franciscan Complex (Brabb et al., 1998; Bonilla, 1998). 

Artificial fill (af) is common in the study area, and likely was used locally to infill ravines to 

flatten the topography and allow development activities. Artificial fill in the study area is 

variable in thickness, and consists of various combinations of poorly to well-compacted gravel, 

sand, silt, and rock fragments (Brabb et al., 1998; Bonilla, 1998; GTC, 2011a; GTC, 2011b; GTC, 

2011c). 

Prehistory 

Human settlement of the San Francisco Bay region probably began sometime during the early 

Holocene period, circa 10,000 years ago. During this period, the mean sea-level elevation was 

considerably lower than today, and the area now encompassed by San Francisco Bay was more 

than 30 miles inland from the coastline. Sea levels rose, and by 8,000 years ago, marine waters 





began to inundate San Francisco Bay. Except for brief periods, the mean sea level has been at or 

above its present level for approximately 6,000 years (Moratto, 1984:221 223). 

Archaeological investigations over the last century have resulted in the identification of the 

following cultural sequence. The Windmiller Pattern (3000 to circa 500 Before Christ [B.C.]) is 

characterized by a commonality of mortar fragments, large numbers of baked clay balls, large 

quantities of projectile points, tridentate fish spears, Haliotis ornaments, Olivella beads, and 

ground and polished charmstones of alabaster, marble, and diorite. The Windmiller culture 

existed in the San Francisco Bay Area, but was more common in the delta area to the east and 

northeast (Moratto, 1984:201 207). 

The Berkeley Pattern (circa 500 B.C. to Anno Domini [A.D.] 500) is marked by a predominance of 

nonstemmed points, diagonally flaked, large, concave-based points, greater presence of ground 

stone than in Windmiller Pattern sites, a highly developed bone industry, flexed burials, and 

some cremations. A major characteristic is the great reliance on acorns for subsistence (Moratto, 

1984:209 211). 

The Augustine Pattern (circa A.D. 500 to contact) is characterized by intensive hunting, fishing, 

and gathering. Acorns were a main dietary staple. Other characteristics include: large, highdensity 

populations, shaped mortars and pestles, bone awls, and the bow and arrow. Burial 

practices varied with social status. High-status individuals may have been cremated. Other burial 

practices included flex interment and burning of artifacts in the grave prior to interment 

(Moratto, 1984:211 214). 

Sometime between 2500 and 2000 B.C., Utian-speaking peoples occupied what is now eastern 

Contra Costa County and then expanded westward to San Francisco Bay. Between the years 2000 

and 1000 B.C., bayshore- and marsh-adapted peoples began to settle in the Bay Area. By circa 

1500 B.C., Utian people had settled the area around the south end of San Francisco Bay. From 

there, they expanded to the north, west, and south. Ohlone peoples occupied essentially the same 

territory in circa 500 B.C. that they did until Euro American contact (Moratto, 1984:279). 

Ethnography 

The region in which the PPSU C-APE is located is within lands occupied during the ethnographic 

period by groups of Native American peoples referred to as the Costanoan. The territory inhabited 

by the Costanoan extended from the Carquinez Strait southward to the Sur River, and from the 

Pacific coast eastward to the Diablo Range. The name Costanoan is derived from the Spanish term 

Costanos, which means “coast people”; however, it does not represent a cohesive ethnic group. 

Instead, Costanoan is a linguistic division, grouping languages together due to their phonological 

similarities. The Costanoan inhabiting the vicinity of the project area were speakers of Ramaytush, 

one of eight Costanoan Indian languages spoken in California. Today, the name Ohlone is more 

commonly used for these peoples. (Kroeber, 1976; Levy, 1978; Shipley, 1978; Moratto, 1984). 

The Ohlone’s largest political organization was the tribelet. Common aboriginal Californians, 

tribelets were generally composed of one or more loosely affiliated villages and associated 

logistical camps situated within a recognized territory. Tribelet leadership was inherited 

patrilineally, generally passing from father to son, although women could also hold the office 

(Levy, 1978:487). 





Richard Levy (Levy, 1978:487) estimated that in the early 1970s, the total number of persons of 

Ohlone descent was greater than 200 individuals. He stated that it was probable that the lastknown 

native speakers of the Ohlone language had died by 1935. In 1971, descendants of the 

Costanoan incorporated as the Ohlone Indian Tribe and received title to the Ohlone Indian 

Cemetery. Ohlone language and culture are in revival. Several groups from Monterey to San 

Francisco self-identify as Ohlone. 

History 

As a result of the Cabrillo expedition of 1542 to 1543, the southbound passage of the Manila 

Galleon along the coast after 1565, and subsequent voyages of exploration by Cermenho in 1597 

and Vizcaino in 1602, the California coastline was familiar to navigators by the end of the 

sixteenth century (Donley et al., 1979). Conversely, the interior remained unknown until the 

eighteenth century. European exploration of what would become the project vicinity was 

initiated in 1769 and lasted until 1810. During this period, a number of Spanish expeditions 

penetrated the territory occupied by Ohlone peoples. Between 1769 and 1776, forays were led by 

Portola, Ortega, Fages, Fages and Crespi, Anza (two expeditions), Rivera, and Moraga. Favorable 

reports led to the founding of seven missions in the region between 1770 and 1797. 

The Ohlone were significantly affected by the Spanish presence in California. At the time of these 

early contacts, there were approximately 10,000 Ohlone organized into roughly 50 politically 

autonomous tribelets. By 1832, the Ohlone population had declined to less than 2,000 individuals. 

This precipitous drop was primarily due to Spanish-introduced diseases to which the Ohlone had 

no natural immunity. Most of the surviving population relocated to the missions; however, some 

Ohlone sought and received refuge among neighboring aboriginal groups (Cook, 1943a, 1943b). 

In the late 1700s, much of north San Mateo County, including the PPSU vicinity, was part of 

Rancho Buri Buri. The rancho extended from what is today Colma and South San Francisco to the 

middle of Burlingame, and from the San Andreas Valley to the bay shore, encompassing an area 

of approximately 15,000 acres (Beck and Haase, 1974). 

Jurisdiction over Alta California was established by Mexico in April 1822. During the Mexican 

Period of 1822 to 1848, the central and local Mexican authorities never held strong control over 

this remote area. Rather, the Mexican Period was one of a slow disintegration of control by the 

Mexican government. During this period, Mission lands were secularized, expropriated, and 

given out as private ranches in the form of land grants (Donley et al., 1979). 

In 1827, Rancho Buri Buri became a private land grant awarded to José Antonio Sanchez. 

According to Mildred Hoover and her colleagues (Hoover et al., 1990:378), this land was 

tentatively awarded to José Antonio Sanchez in 1827; however, he was officially granted the 

rancho by the provincial government in 1835. 

Friction between Mexico and the United States ultimately led to the Mexican War of 1846 to 1847. 

On July 9, 1846, a crew from the sloop-of-war USS Portsmouth came ashore and raised the first 

American flag over San Francisco (Beck and Haase, 1974:47; Hoover et al., 1990:336). However, as 

Mexico had ceased stationing regular troops in San Francisco following secularization (Hoover et 

al., 1990:331), the raising of the flag was more a symbolic gesture than a result of heroic exuberance. 





California became part of the United States as a consequence of the U.S. victory over Mexico in 

the war. The territory was formally ceded in the treaty of Guadelupe Hidalgo in 1848, and was 

admitted as a state in 1850 (Bethel, 1969; Beck and Haase, 1974). 

When the United States took over California, land owners were required to prove their claims to 

land previously granted by the Mexican government to the newly established Public Land 

Commission. The U.S. Government confirmed the rights of the Sanchez family to the rancho; 

however, lengthy lawsuits and the need to pay taxes and loans ultimately resulted in the Sanchez 

heirs only being able to retain 5,000 of the original 15,000 acres granted to Sanchez (Chavez and 

Hupman, 1991:11). Among the new landowners of the former Rancho Buri Buri lands was cattle 

baron Charles Lux, who constructed a “stately home” on his 1,500-acre parcel (Hoover et al., 

1990:378). 

Colma Site 

The Colma site is located in the Town of Colma (formerly Lawndale), which is situated on former 

Rancho Buri Buri land. Colma was first developed in the 1870s as a “city of cemeteries.” 

Concerned that Colma’s cemeteries would be annexed to Daly City or San Francisco, Colma’s 

small population incorporated on August 5, 1924 (Chandler, 1973). By 1973, Colma had more 

than 20 cemeteries and a small industry of florists and stone cutters in an area that only covered 

1.8 square miles (Chandler, 1973). Today, 73 percent of the town’s land is used for cemeteries 

(Town of Colma, 2011). 


The South San Francisco site is located in the City of South San Francisco, which was initially 

established on former Rancho Buri Buri land in 1890 as a “company town” managed by 

W.J. Martin and E.E. Cunning, in charge of the South San Francisco Land & Improvement 

Company (Alexander and Hamm, 1916; South San Francisco Historical Society, 2004). South San 

Francisco, the “Industrial City,” was incorporated in September 19, 1908 (Alexander and Hamm, 

1916; South San Francisco Historical Society, 2004; City of South San Francisco, 2011). At 

incorporation, the city had nearly 2,000 residents (South San Francisco Historical Society, 2004). 

Only 8 years later, in 1916, South San Francisco had a population of 3,500 (Alexander and Hamm, 

1916). 

Since World War II, South San Francisco has endeavored to become a well-balanced community 

of mixed industrial and residential areas. As with many communities in the area, following the 

end of World War II, residential growth often took the form of large suburban subdivisions. 

Within the vicinity of the South San Francisco site, the Rancho Buri Buri subdivision was 

constructed after approval by the South San Francisco Planning Commission on March 20, 1946 

(City of South San Francisco, 1946). Like most post-World War II suburbs, the Rancho Buri Buri 

subdivision was laid out on curvilinear streets with cul-de-sacs, a form that was dictated in the 

Federal Housing Administration guidelines for neighborhood planning. Initially, the homes built 

after the war were simple structures, influenced by Federal Housing Administration 1940 

guidelines for the Minimum House and Small House Program, which emphasized a flexible 

system of house design based on the “principles of expandability, standardization, and 

variability” (Ames and McClelland, 2002). The homes were constructed to provide “a maximum 

accommodation within a minimum of means” (Ames and McClelland, 2002). 





Beginning in the 1950s, heavy industrial use diminished and was replaced with warehousing. 

More recently, the city has been redeveloped for biotech, hospitality, research and development 

industries (South San Francisco Historical Society, 2004). Residential construction increased 

substantially after World War II (South San Francisco Historical Society, 2004), in large part to 

accommodate the city’s rapidly growing population which rose from 4,411 residents in 1920 to 

60,552 residents in 2000 (City of South San Francisco, 2011). 

San Bruno North and San Bruno South Sites 

The San Bruno North and San Bruno South sites are located in the City of San Bruno, which was 

initially established as rural farmland and horse-ranching properties in the 1870s on former 

Rancho Buri Buri land. Early settlers farmed and raised dairy cattle, until land speculators 

subdivided the land beginning in 1903 and set the lot patterns that continue to exist today 

(Cloud, 1928; City of San Bruno, 2011). Immediately following the 1906 San Francisco earthquake 

and fire, a wave of displaced persons moved to the suburbs seeking shelter. Approximately 1,400 

displaced people moved to San Bruno (Fredricks, 2003). Merging with Lomita Park on 

December 23, 1914, the City of San Bruno was incorporated, with a population of 1,400 residents 

(Alexander and Hamm, 1916; City of San Bruno, 2011). By 1916, San Bruno had grown slightly to 

a population of 1,752 residents (Alexander and Hamm, 1916). San Bruno remained a quiet, 

suburban community until the outbreak of World War II. As war-related industries arose in the 

neighboring South San Francisco, the demand for nearby housing grew. The populations of both 

cities increased dramatically during this period (City of San Bruno, 2011). San Bruno’s population 

grew from approximately 4,000 residents in 1940 to 15,000 residents by the mid-1940s. San Bruno 

annexed surrounding property, and grew from a city of 2 square miles to a city of 6 square miles 

in the 1940s (Fredricks, 2003). San Bruno’s greatest population growth, a 130 percent increase, 

occurred during the 1950s. As the post-war population grew, the housing tracts expanded 

westward into the hills (City of San Bruno, 2011). In the 1960s, both housing development and 

population growth slowed to approximately 25 percent, and in the 1970s the development of 

large multi-family housing complexes began. Today, San Bruno is essentially a residential 

community, with mostly service businesses, such as grocery stores and drug stores, serving the 

city’s residents (Sanborn Map Company, 1949; Fredricks, 2003; Appendix G). 

Millbrae Site 

The Millbrae site is located in the City of Millbrae, originally established on former Rancho Buri 

Buri land as a private estate. Among the many speculators and builders who acquired portions of 

Rancho Buri Buri was Darius Ogden Mills. Mills built his estate on the Buri Buri land he acquired 

and called it Millbrae, which was a combination of his last name and “brae,” the Scottish word 

for rolling hills (Milan, 2010). The land around the 150-acre Mills estate was also named Millbrae. 

Following Mills’ death in 1910, the Mills family sold portions of its land for development, and the 

surrounding community began to grow. It was served by the Southern Pacific Railroad, the 

United Railroads, and the Peninsula Rapid Transit Company in 1916 (Alexander and Hamm, 

1916). In 1928, several affluent San Francisco businessmen joined resources and bought a 143-acre 

site approximately 20 miles south of San Francisco for $250,000. In 1929, the group hired Alister 

MacKenzie to create an 18-hole course. MacKenzie partnered with Robert Hunter and 

H. Chandler Egan to design the Union League Gold and Country Club, now the Green Hills 

Country Club (Cornish and Whitten, 1993). 





Millbrae’s small business district was located on El Camino Real in the early 1930s, and began to 

expand along Broadway in the 1940s. On January 14, 1948, Millbrae was incorporated, and the 

community became a city with nearly 8,000 residents. Following incorporation, like elsewhere in 

the post-World War II building boom, the community witnessed expansion through the 

construction of suburban subdivisions. The following suburban subdivisions are within the vicinity 

of the PPSU project: the Millbrae Meadows No. 1 subdivision by the Stoneson Development 

Corporation was approved by the Millbrae Planning Commission on November 29, 1954, and the 

adjacent Millbrae Meadows No. 5 subdivision was approved in 1962 (City of Millbrae, 1962). 

Today, Millbrae is an important transportation hub due to its location at the southern terminus of 

the Bay Area Rapid Transit system, near the San Francisco International Airport, and adjacent to the 

main north-south highways of the San Francisco peninsula (U.S. Route 101 and Interstate 280). It is 

primarily a residential enclave (Millbrae Historical Society, 2007; Appendix G). 

Peninsula Water System 

All of the sites included in the PPSU project are within the larger Peninsula water system, which 

was first established in 1861. The following information is extracted from the San Francisco Water 

System Improvement Program Final Environmental Impact Report (SF Planning, 2008b). The 

reader is referred to this Environmental Impact Report and the technical report prepared for this 

document for more detailed historical information on the Peninsula water system (URS, 2012b). 

Brief contextual information on the components of the Peninsula Water System occurring within 

the C-APE for the PPSU project is presented below. 

The construction of the Baden-Merced Pipeline, San Andreas Pipeline No. 2 (SAPL2), San 

Andreas Pipeline No. 3 (SAPL3), and the Sunset Supply Branch Pipeline (SSBPL) was an 

important development related to all of the PPSU project sites. In 1868, the Spring Valley Water 

Company (SVWC), which was founded in 1860, purchased the valley and began constructing a 

dam and pipeline to meet increasing demands to provide water service to San Francisco. By 1870, 

the San Andreas Reservoir, the first lake south of San Francisco, and SVWC’s second-highest 

storage reservoir, was placed into service. Water from the San Andreas Reservoir was carried to 

Millbrae through a tunnel, then delivered via a 30-inch-diameter pipeline to the College Hill 

Reservoir, San Francisco’s second-highest distribution resource. After the 1906 earthquake, 

SVWC sent Pilarcitos water into San Andreas Reservoir, where it was conveyed into the city via 

the San Andreas Pipeline and eventually the Baden-Merced Pipeline, built in 1907, and then 

pumped to Laguna Honda, rather than reaching that terminal by gravity flow as in the past. 

Because the earthquake destroyed the Pilarcitos Aqueduct, the flow from the Pilarcitos watershed 

was stored in San Andreas Reservoir. The Baden-Merced Pipeline was among the multiple 

transmission lines that delivered water from the Peninsula storage reservoirs to San Francisco 

distributing reservoirs (JRP, 2008a). The pipeline was built from wrought-iron pipe reused from 

older pipelines. The pipeline was approximately 7 miles in length, running from the Baden Valve 

Lot, located at El Camino Real and West Orange Avenue in South San Francisco, to the Merced 

Manor Reservoir, located on 22nd Avenue north of Ocean Avenue in San Francisco. Based on 

information that SFPUC provided about the location of the pipeline, a review of other studies 

about the pipeline (JRP, 2008a), and current conditions of pipeline features visible at the surface, 

SVWC, and, later, the city, altered and moved the Baden-Merced Pipeline over time and 

reassigned the use of its water within the city distribution system. Based on field survey of the 

visible portions of the Baden-Merced Pipeline in the C-APE, the pipeline materials are original, 





but there is some evidence of patching. No evidence was uncovered that the portion of Baden- 

Merced Pipeline in the C-APE has been moved as has been found in other portions of the 

pipelines in the SFWD system (JRP, 2008a). 

Raising of the San Andreas Dam in 1928 was accompanied by the construction of a second 

pipeline from San Andreas, SAPL2 (JRP, 2008b). SAPL2 was a 54-inch-diameter steel-lockbar 

pipeline built to conduct water from the San Andreas Outlet Structure No. 2, which was 

constructed at the same time, to the Laguna Honda Reservoir in San Francisco. On March 3, 1930, 

San Francisco purchased SVWC, and created the San Francisco Water Department (SFWD). All 

SVWC assets were transferred to SFWD, including the San Andreas Dam and Reservoir, and 

associated pipelines (JRP, 2008b; ICF, 2009). SFWD made numerous improvements and 

modifications to SAPL2. In 1966-1967, portions of the pipeline were relocated to accommodate 

Interstate 280, San Bruno Avenue West, and Interstate 380 improvements. Approximately 360 feet 

of SAPL2 adjacent to Shelter Creek Condominiums were encased in 1967. In 1983, the entire 

pipeline was lined with cement mortar (SF Planning, 2010). 

In 1955, SFWD built the 60-inch-diameter Sunset Supply Pipeline and SSBPL to supply water to 

the Sunset Reservoir in San Francisco. In the early 1970s, the Harry Tracy Water Treatment Plant 

(HTWTP), originally known as the San Andreas Water Treatment Plant, was constructed to filter 

water from the San Andreas Reservoir. Plant operations began on August 8, 1972. Plant capacity 

was expanded in 1992. In 1994, the plant was renamed in honor of Harry W. Tracy, a lifelong 

SFWD employee and Water Quality Manager. The plant serves SAPL2 and SAPL3, which feed 

the Sunset and Merced reservoirs in San Francisco. Since the construction of HTWTP, SSBPL 

delivers treated water from HTWTP to the Sunset Supply Pipeline. High-pressured water can 

also be carried through SSBPL (ICF, 2009). 

SAPL3 was constructed circa 1979 as a new pipeline extension, replacing the existing Baden- 

Merced Pipeline in the South San Francisco site. The segment of SAPL3 between HTWTP and 

Baden was rehabilitated circa 1991, and retrofitted with an interior steel liner, ranging from 

54 inches to 60 inches in diameter. The segment of SAPL3 north of Baden was retrofitted circa 

1997, with an interior steel 60-inch-diameter liner (SF Planning, 2010). The Baden-Merced 

Pipeline was abandoned following the completion of SAPL3. 

5.5.1.2 Existing Conditions 

Brief synopses of the methods used to identify resources for each of the resource categories 

within their respective C-APEs and the results of these efforts are presented below. 

Paleontology 

As detailed in the paleontological technical report (URS, 2012c), the paleontological investigation 

completed for the PPSU project consisted of a literature review and museum archival search, 

followed by field surveys to assess the paleontological sensitivity of the study area. 

The Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) developed the Conformable Impact Mitigation 

Guidelines (SVP Guidelines) (SVP, 1995), which outline criteria to assess paleontological sensitivity 

based on the potential of a geologic unit to contain significant paleontological resources. 





Based on these guidelines, a vertebrate fossil is considered significant unless otherwise 

demonstrated, due to the relative rarity of vertebrate fossils. Vertebrate fossils are so uncommon 

that, in many cases, each recovered specimen will provide additional important information 

about the morphological variation or the geographic distribution of its species. Additionally, 

certain invertebrate or botanical fossils are considered significant paleontological resources if 

they provide new and substantial taxonomic, phylogenetic, ecologic, or stratigraphic data. 

The SVP defines paleontological resources to be significant fossils or assemblages of fossils if they 

are unique, unusual, rare, uncommon, and diagnostically or stratigraphically 2 important, and/or 

add to an existing body of knowledge in specific areas—stratigraphically, taxonomically, and/or 

regionally. 

A rock unit is considered “sensitive” to adverse impacts if there is a high probability that 

grading, excavation, or other earth-moving will jeopardize significant fossil remains. The 

paleontological importance or sensitivity of each rock unit exposed is the measure most amenable 

to assessing the significance of paleontological resources, because the areal distribution of each 

rock unit can be delineated on a topographic or geologic map. The paleontological sensitivity of a 

stratigraphic unit reflects its potential paleontological productivity and sensitivity, as well as the 

scientific significance of the fossils it has produced. This method of paleontological resource 

assessment is the most appropriate because discrete levels of paleontological importance can be 

delineated on a topographic or geologic map. 

The SVP Guidelines establish three categories of sensitivity for paleontological resources under 

the standard guidelines for assessment and mitigation of adverse impacts to paleontological 

resources. The three categories are low, high, and undetermined, as described below. 

Rock units that are not sedimentary in origin (e.g., most igneous and metamorphic rocks) are 

categorized as low-sensitivity paleontological resources. However, sedimentary rock units may 

also be categorized as low-sensitivity resources if they have been well examined and have not 

produced paleontological resources. Monitoring is not usually recommended or needed during 

excavation in a rock unit with low sensitivity. 

High-sensitivity paleontological resources are categorized as rock units older than Holocene 

(recent) 3 for which vertebrate or significant invertebrate or suite of plant fossils have been 

recovered. In areas of high paleontological sensitivity, full-time monitoring is recommended 

during ground-disturbing activities. 

Paleontological resources in sedimentary rock units for which little information is available are 

categorized as undetermined paleontological sensitivity. It is often possible for an experienced 

paleontologist to determine whether such a rock unit should be assigned a high or low sensitivity 

categorization after a pedestrian survey is performed, and detailed observations of both natural 

and artificial exposures of the rock unit are made. 

2 Pertaining to the layers of the earth’s surface. 

3 Holocene or recent age sediments (less than 10,000 years old) are generally considered to be too young to preserve 

significant fossils. 





As described in the paleontological technical report, six geological units occur in the vicinity of 

the PPSU C-APE. Using the SVP Guidelines, these units were ranked as having either high or low 

paleontological sensitivity. 

High Paleontological Sensitivity Geologic Units 

Based on previously recorded vertebrate fossil localities, the Merced and Colma Formations in 

the study area are considered to have a high potential to contain significant fossils and therefore 

are ranked as having high paleontological sensitivity. Although recorded vertebrate fossil 

localities were not found within the slope debris and ravine fill, based on the age of this 

geological unit (Pleistocene), it is likely that undiscovered vertebrate fossils could be 

encountered. The slope debris and ravine fill is considered to have a high potential to contain 

significant fossils, and therefore is ranked as having high paleontological sensitivity. 

Low Paleontological Sensitivity Geologic Units 

Artificial fill is composed of previously disturbed combinations of poorly to well-compacted 

gravel, sand, silt and rock fragments. Based on the recent age (i.e., not old enough to preserve 

fossils) and being previously disturbed, artificial fill is considered to have low potential to 

contain significant fossils, and therefore is ranked as having low paleontological sensitivity. 

Alluvial fan and fluvial deposits are Holocene in age, and are considered too recent to preserve 

fossils. Alluvial fan and fluvial deposits are considered to have low potential to contain 

significant fossils, and therefore are ranked as having low paleontological sensitivity. 

Based on the rarity of recorded vertebrate localities and the disturbed and sheared nature of the 

Franciscan Complex in the study area, it is considered to have low potential to contain significant 

fossils, and therefore is ranked as having low paleontological sensitivity. 

Synthesis of Paleontological Sensitivity Ratings within the PPSU C-APE 

Using both the SVP Guidelines and field surveys, the following discussion on the paleontological 

sensitivity of each of the project components was developed. For a more detailed discussion of 

these efforts, the reader is referred to the paleontological technical report prepared for the PPSU 

project (URS, 2012c). 

The Pleistocene Colma Formation comprises the majority of the South San Francisco, and San 

Bruno North sites, except for minor amounts of Pleistocene slope debris and ravine fill, Holocene 

alluvial fan and fluvial deposits, and historic artificial fill. Holocene alluvial fan and fluvial 

deposits comprise the majority of the Colma site, except for minor amounts of Pleistocene slope 

debris and ravine fill and Pleistocene Colma Formation. The Pliocene and Pleistocene Merced 

Formation comprises the majority of the San Bruno South site, except for a small outcrop of the 

Franciscan Complex located on the south side of and underneath Whitman Way, and a small area 

of artificial fill located in the vicinity of the Shelter Creek Condominiums. The Pliocene and 

Pleistocene Merced Formation comprises the majority of the Millbrae site, except for artificial fill 

in the staging and spoils area north of the SFPUC ROW, and the Pleistocene Colma Formation for 

the northern 500 feet of the to the trail that extends through the City of Millbrae open space area 

from Lomita Avenue to the SFPUC ROW. The last 100 feet of this trail are artificial fill. 





Geologic units of high paleontological sensitivity (slope debris and ravine fill, Colma and Merced 

Formations) outcrop on the surface of a portion of all five sites (Brabb et al., 1998; Bonilla, 1998; 

GTC, 2011b). Ground disturbance in areas that have geologic units of high paleontological 

sensitivity could impact significant paleontological resources. 

Geologic units of low paleontological sensitivity (artificial fill and alluvial deposits) outcrop on 

the surface in all but the South San Francisco site. These recent age geologic units that have low 

paleontological sensitivity are commonly underlain by geologic units of high paleontological 

sensitivity (slope debris and ravine fill and the Colma and Merced Formations). Grounddisturbing 

activities, which extend below these geologic units of low paleontological sensitivity, 

and into geologic units of high paleontological sensitivity, could potentially impact significant 

undisturbed paleontological resources. 

The Franciscan Complex is considered to have low paleontological sensitivity and only outcrops 

in the San Bruno South site. It is unlikely that this unit is underlain by geologic units of high 

paleontological sensitivity in the study area. 

The geologic units as they occur within each of the project components, and each unit’s 

corresponding paleontological sensitivity rating are presented below in Table 5.5-1. 

Table 5.5-1 

Paleontological Sensitivity Ratings for Geologic Rock Units within the PPSU C-APE 

Geologic Rock 

Unit Age Colma Site 



Site 


North Site 


South Site 

Millbrae 

Site 

Paleontological 

Sensitivity 

Rating 1 

Artificial Fill 

Recent 

(Historic) 

No No Yes Yes Yes Low 

Alluvial Deposits Recent 

(Holocene) 

Yes Yes No No No Low 

Slope debris and 

ravine fill 

Pleistocene Yes Yes No No No High 

Colma Formation Pleistocene Yes Yes Yes No Yes High 

Merced 

Formation 

Pliocene 

and 

Pleistocene 

No No No Yes Yes High 

Franciscan 

Complex 

Mesozoic No No No Yes No Low 

Source: URS, 2012c. 

Notes: 

1 

Paleontological sensitivity ratings are based on Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (1995) Conformable Impact Mitigation Guidelines. 

Archaeology 

As described in the archaeological technical reports prepared for the PPSU project (URS, 2012a; 

URS, 2012d; Sonoma State University, 2012; Sonoma State University, 2013), the PPSU C-APE 

was inventoried for archaeological resources using a combination of background research, 

consultation with the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) as well as 





Native American groups identified by the NAHC, historical societies and other relevant parties, 

geoarchaeological assessment, and pedestrian surface surveys of the individual project 

components. 

No archaeological resources were identified within the approved C-APE as a result of the records 

search and the field survey. Although no archaeological resources were observed, the potential 

for the inadvertent exposure of buried archaeological resources with project implementation 

must be addressed. San Francisco’s Environmental Planning Division has developed a ratings 

system for the Water System Improvement Program (WSIP) to address the archaeological 

sensitivity of a project component’s underlying soils. Below are the definitions developed for 

WSIP to assess archaeological sensitivity (Praetzellis, 2009): 

 

 

 

High sensitivity: Archaeological resources are very likely to be present. Resources are known 

to exist at this location or immediately adjacent to it. Project effects on locations of high 

sensitivity may meet California Code of Regulations 15300.2(f); where this is the case, a 

project will not qualify for Categorical Exemption. 

Moderate sensitivity: Archaeological resources may be present. Although no resources have 

been recorded at this location, historical and cultural factors indicate they may be present. 

Low sensitivity: Archaeological resources are unlikely to be present. Either resources were 

probably never present, or portions of the location that may have contained resources have 

been so heavily disturbed that archaeological remains are unlikely to have survived. 

Given that much of the C-APE was previously disturbed by the installation of the pipelines on 

which the proposed project is focused, the archaeological sensitivity of the majority of the C-APE 

is considered low, according to the WSIP archaeological guidance presented above. Therefore, 

the likelihood of encountering intact, buried, archaeological deposits during project 

implementation within the previously disturbed portions of the C-APE is correspondingly low. 

Although most of the C-APE has low archaeological sensitivity, the records search completed for 

the investigation revealed the reported presence of archaeological site CA-SMA-95 within the 

vicinity of the C-APE at the San Bruno South site. Recorded in 1955 by Albert Elsasser of the 

University of California Archaeological Survey, CA-SMA-95 was identified as a prehistoric 

occupation site shellmound near the bank of a small creek. Because the location map attached to 

the confidential archaeological form is of insufficient scale or detail to accurately pinpoint the site 

location, the site’s exact location is unknown. It should also be noted, however, that it is unclear if 

Elsasser ever visited the site. The confidential archaeological site record states that the site was 

recorded by A. Elsasser from P. Lissol, perhaps suggesting that Elsasser recorded the site using 

data supplied to him as opposed to actually observing the site firsthand. 

In addition to the records search data, the geoarchaeological assessment identified soils of 

increased archaeological sensitivity (i.e., undisturbed Holocene soils in the vicinity of natural 

water courses) at the Colma and South San Francisco sites. Therefore, there are a few areas of 

increased archaeological sensitivity in the PPSU project C-APE. 

Using the rating system above, postulations for each project site are presented in the following 

paragraphs. 





Colma Site 

The majority of the C-APE in the Colma site is of low archaeological sensitivity, given the extent 

of disturbance to the soils that occurred when SAPL2 and SAPL3 were originally constructed. 

There would be some overexcavation for the installation of the replacement pipelines and the 

shoring. These undisturbed soils are Holocene in age and occur in the C-APE along the course of 

a naturally occurring creek (now culverted) that would have been a draw to the prehistoric 

inhabitants of the area. These undisturbed soils could harbor buried archaeological deposits and 

therefore, using the rating system above, would be considered of moderate archaeological 

sensitivity. 


The majority of the C-APE in the South San Francisco site is of low archaeological sensitivity, 

given the extent of disturbance to the soils that occurred when SAPL2 and SAPL3 were originally 

constructed. There would be some overexcavation for the installation of the replacement 

pipelines and the shoring. There would also be the use of jack-and-bore procedures through 

undisturbed soils to place pipe under Westborough Avenue. These undisturbed soils are 

Holocene in age and occur in the C-APE along the course of a naturally occurring creek (now 

culverted) that would have been an attractant to the prehistoric inhabitants of the area. These 

undisturbed soils could harbor buried archaeological deposits and so, using the rating system 

above, would be considered of moderate archaeological sensitivity. 


All of the C-APE in the San Bruno North site is of low archaeological sensitivity, given that no 

excavation within undisturbed soils would occur with project implementation. 


The majority of the C-APE in the San Bruno South site is of low archaeological sensitivity, given 

the extent of disturbance to the soils that occurred when SAPL2 and SAPL3 were originally 

constructed. There would be some overexcavation for the installation of the replacement 

pipelines and the shoring, but the installation will be occurring in Colma and Merced formation 

geologic soils, which are unlikely to contain buried archaeological deposits. The records search 

did reveal, however, that archaeological site CA-SMA-95 was reportedly located near the 

northern terminus of the C-APE for this project site. This specific area is within the general 

vicinity of the Shelter Creek Condominiums. The presence of the site raises the archaeological 

sensitivity of this portion of the C-APE to high, according to the criteria listed above. 

Millbrae Site 

The majority of the C-APE in the Millbrae site is of low archaeological sensitivity, given the 

extent of disturbance to the soils that occurred when SSBPL was originally constructed. There 

would be some overexcavation for the installation of the replacement pipeline and the shoring, 

but all of this would be occurring in Colma and Merced formation geologic contexts, soils 

unlikely to contain buried archaeological deposits. 





Historic Architecture 

As described in the historic architecture technical report prepared for the PPSU project (URS, 

2012b), the PPSU C-APE was inventoried for historic architectural resources using a combination 

of background research, consultation with historical societies and other relevant parties, and field 

investigations of each the individual project components. 

In total, seven historic-period built environment properties within the C-APE were identified and 

evaluated for this report. Several of the properties, specifically the portion of Baden-Merced 

Pipeline, and the portions of SAPL2 and SAPL3, are located in multiple sites. Below are the seven 

historic-period built-environment properties listed by site. 

Colma site: 

 

 

Portion of Baden-Merced Pipeline; and 

Portions of SAPL2 and SAPL3. 

South San Francisco site: 

 

 

 

105 Arroyo Drive; 

Portion of Baden-Merced Pipeline; and 


San Bruno North and San Bruno South sites: 

 


Millbrae site: 

 

 

 

 

1094 Ridgewood Drive; 

1100 Ridgewood Drive; 

Green Hills Country Club; and 

Portion of SSBPL. 

The significance of the surveyed properties within the C-APE was determined by applying the 

procedure and criteria for National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and California Register of 

Historical Resources (CRHR) eligibility, and the definition of a historical resource for the 

purposes of CEQA (see Regulatory Setting below). For a full evaluation of each of the properties, 

refer to the DPR 523 series forms included as Appendix B to the technical report prepared for the 

project (URS, 2012b). 

After applying the procedure and criteria for the NRHP and CRHR eligibility, as well as other 

means by which properties can be considered historical resources for the purposes of CEQA (as 

defined in CEQA), it was determined that only one of the seven properties appears to be eligible 

for listing in the NRHP and CRHR, and is considered a historical resource for the purposes of 

CEQA. The Green Hills Country Club appears to be eligible for listing in the NRHP and CRHR 

under NRHP Criterion C and CRHR Criterion 3, as a distinctive example of a Dr. Alister 

MacKenzie-designed golf course (designed landscape). Table 5.5-2 lists each of the historicperiod, 

built-environment properties, organized by site. 





Table 5.5-2 

Historic Architecture Eligibility Status 

Site 

Name 

Date of 

Construction 

Significance 

Colma and South San 


Portions of Baden- 

Merced Pipeline 

1907 Not Eligible 

Colma, South San 

Francisco, San Bruno 

North and San Bruno 

South 

Portions of SAPL2 

Portions of SAPL3 

circa 1928 

circa 1979 

Not Eligible 

South San Francisco 105 Arroyo Drive 1948 Not Eligible 

Millbrae 1094 Ridgewood Drive 1964 Not Eligible 

Millbrae 1100 Ridgewood Drive 1956 Not Eligible 

Millbrae 

Green Hills Country 

Club 

1929 NRHP and CRHR Eligible, 

Historical Resource for 

CEQA 

Millbrae Portion of SSBPL circa 1955 Not Eligible 

Source: URS, 2012b. 

Notes: 

CEQA = California Environmental Quality Act 

CRHR = California Register of Historical Resources 

NRHP = National Register of Historic Places 

SAPL2 = San Andreas Pipeline No. 2 

SAPL3 = San Andreas Pipeline No. 3 

SSBPL = Sunset Supply Branch Pipeline 


Numerous laws, regulations, and statutes, on both the federal and State levels, seek to protect 

and target the management of cultural resources. The term “Cultural Resources” refers generally 

to resources as defined above. “Historical Resources” for the purposes of CEQA or “Historic 

Properties” for the purposes of NEPA or Section 106 level projects, refer to those cultural 

resources that have been evaluated as being eligible for listing in the CRHR and the NRHP, 

respectively. 

Both NEPA and CEQA specifically or implicitly also require consideration of paleontological 

resources. Paleontological resources are included among nonrenewable scientific resources by 

governmental agencies. Protection of such resources provided by federal and State legislation, 

and even by some local ordinances. The SVP has developed guidelines and professional 

standards for assessing the impact of projects on paleontological resources and for mitigation of 

adverse impacts (SVP, 1995, 1996). 





Pertinent federal, State, and local regulations targeting the management of cultural resources that 

pertain to the PPSU project are described below. 


National Historic Preservation Act 

Cultural resources are protected through the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, 

as amended (16 United States Code 470f), and its implementing regulations. Before a federal 

agency can engage in an “undertaking” that would, for example, require federal funding or a 

federal permit, Section 106 of the NHPA requires the agency to consider the effects of the 

undertaking on historic properties (i.e., properties listed in or eligible for listing in the NRHP), 

and to afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to 

comment on any undertaking that would adversely affect historic properties. Under the NHPA, a 

property is considered significant if it meets the National Register listing criteria at 36 CFR 60.4, 

as stated below: 

The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, 

engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and 

objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, 

feeling, and association and that: 

a) Are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the 

broad patterns of our history, or 

b) Are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past, or 

c) Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of 

construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high 

artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity 

whose components may lack individual distinction, or 

d) Have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory 

or history. 

Federal review of undertakings is referred to as the Section 106 process. This process is the 

responsibility of the federal lead agency. The Section 106 review typically involves a four-step 

procedure, which is described in detail in the implementing regulations (36 CFR 800): 

 

 

 

 

Identify historic properties in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer 

(SHPO) and interested parties; 

Assess the effects of the undertaking on historic properties; 

Consult with the SHPO, other agencies, and interested parties to develop an agreement that 

addresses the treatment of historic properties and notify the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation; and 

Proceed with the project according to the conditions of the agreement. 






California Office of Historic Preservation 

The State of California implements the NHPA through its statewide comprehensive cultural 

resource surveys and preservation programs. The California Office of Historic Preservation is an 

office of the California Department of Parks and Recreation, and implements the policies of the 

NHPA on a statewide level. The Office of Historic Preservation also maintains the California 

Historical Resources Inventory. The SHPO is an appointed official who implements historic 

preservation programs within the State’s jurisdiction, and is housed at the California Office of 

Historic Preservation. 

California Environmental Quality Act 

CEQA, as codified in California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21000 et seq., is the 

principal statute governing the environmental review of projects in the state. CEQA requires lead 

agencies to determine if a proposed project would have a significant effect on historical resources 

and unique archaeological resources. The CEQA Guidelines define a historical resource as: 

(1) a resource in the California Register; (2) a resource included in a local register 

of historical resources, as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k), or identified as 

significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of PRC 

Section 5024.1(g); or (3) any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or 

manuscript that a lead agency determines to be historically significant or 

significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, 

educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California, provided 

the lead agency’s determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of 

the whole record. 

If a lead agency determines that an archaeological site is a historical resource, the provisions of 

PRC Section 21084.1 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 would apply. If an archaeological site 

does not meet the CEQA Guidelines criteria for a historical resource, then the site may meet the 

threshold of PRC Section 21083 regarding unique archaeological resources. A unique 

archaeological resource is an archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly 

demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high 

probability that it meets any of the following criteria: 

 

 

 

Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there 

is a demonstrable public interest in that information; 

Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available 

example of its type; or 

Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized, important, prehistoric, or historic event 

or person (PRC Section 21083.2 [g]). 

The CEQA Guidelines note that if a resource is neither a unique archaeological resource nor a 

historical resource, the effects of the project on that resource shall not be considered a significant 

effect on the environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064[c][4]). 





Under PRC 21000 et seq., CEQA also requires that public agencies and private interests identify 

the significance of the impacts of their proposed projects on any object or site of significance to 

the scientific annals of California (CEQA Section 15064.5 [a][3]); this requirement also applies to 

paleontological resources. Administrative regulations for the implementation of CEQA are set 

forth in California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et seq., commonly known as the “CEQA 

Guidelines.” The CEQA Guidelines define the procedures, types of activities, persons, and public 

agencies required to comply with CEQA. Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines contains an 

Environmental Checklist of questions that a lead agency should normally address if relevant to a 

project’s environmental impacts. One of the questions to be answered in this Environmental 

Checklist (California Code of Regulations Section 15063; Appendix G, Section V, Part c) is the 

following: “Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or 

site?” 

California Register of Historical Resources 

The California Register is “an authoritative listing and guide to be used by state and local 

agencies, private groups, and citizens in identifying the existing historical resources of the state 

and to indicate which resources deserve to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from 

substantial adverse change” (PRC Section 5024.1[a]). The criteria for eligibility to the California 

Register are based on National Register criteria (PRC Section 5024.1[b]). Certain resources are 

determined by the statute to be automatically included in the California Register, including 

California properties formally determined eligible for or listed in the National Register (PRC 

Section 5024.1[d]). 

To be eligible for the California Register as a historical resource, a prehistoric or historic-period 

resource must be significant at the local or state level under one or more of the following criteria: 

1. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of 

California’s history and cultural heritage; 

2. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; 

3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or 

represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or 

4. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history (CEQA 

Guidelines Section 15064.5 [a][3]). 

For a resource to be eligible for the California Register, it must also retain enough integrity to be 

recognizable as a historical resource and to convey its significance. A resource that does not meet 

the National Register criteria may still be eligible for listing in the California Register. 

California Public Resources Code 

As part of the determination made pursuant to PRC Section 21080.1, the lead agency must 

determine whether the project would have a significant effect on archaeological and 


Several sections of the PRC protect cultural resources. Under Section 5097.5, no person shall 

knowingly and willfully excavate upon, or remove, destroy, injure, or deface, any historic or 

prehistoric ruins, burial grounds, archaeological or vertebrate paleontological site (including 





fossilized footprints), inscriptions made by human agency, rock art, or any other archaeological, 

paleontological, or historical feature situated on public lands, except with the express permission 

of the public agency that has jurisdiction over the lands. Violation of this section is a 

misdemeanor. Section 5097.98 states that if Native American remains are identified within a 

project area, the landowner must “discuss and confer” with the appropriate Native American as 

identified by the NAHC and regarding the treatment or disposition of, with appropriate dignity, 

the human remains and any items associated with Native American burials. These procedures 

are also addressed in Section 15046.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. California Health and Safety Code 

Section 7050.5 prohibits disinterring, disturbing, or removing human remains from a location 

other than a dedicated cemetery. Section 30244 of the PRC requires reasonable mitigation for 

impacts on paleontological and archaeological resources that occur as a result of development on 

public lands. 

In addition, several sections of the PRC that are relevant for the project area protect 

paleontological resources. Section 5097.5 prohibits “knowing and willful” excavation, removal, 

destruction, injury, and defacement of any paleontologic feature on public lands (i.e., lands under 

state, county, city, district, or public authority jurisdiction, or the jurisdiction of a public 

corporation), except where the agency with jurisdiction has granted express permission. Section 

30244 requires reasonable mitigation for impacts on paleontological resources that occur as a 

result of development on public lands. 


San Francisco Historic Preservation Commission and Planning Code, Articles 10 

and 11 

The San Francisco Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) is a seven-member body that makes 

recommendations to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors on landmark designations, historic 

district designations, and individual resource designations within historic districts. The HPC may 

also review and comment on environmental documents under CEQA for projects affecting 

historical resources; and the HPC reviews and comments on any agreements proposed under the 

NHPA where the City would be a signatory. The HPC also approves Certificates of 

Appropriateness for landmarks and properties within Article 10 Historic Districts. 

The SHPO has included the City and County of San Francisco (CCSF) on its list of Certified Local 

Governments, which means that San Francisco has an approved historic preservation ordinance, 

HPC, and other formal processes related to historic preservation and cultural resources 

management. The CCSF reviews the historical resources designated under Articles 10 and 11 of 

the San Francisco Planning Code when it evaluates project impacts on historical resources. 

Article 10 describes procedures regarding the preservation of sites and areas of special character 

or special historical, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value, such as officially designated city 

landmarks and buildings included within locally designated historic districts. Article 11 of the 

Planning Code designated six downtown conservation districts. There are no CCSF-designated 

landmarks or properties that contribute to designated historic districts in the PPSU project 

C-APE. 







CCSF has not formally adopted significance standards for impacts related to cultural resources, 

but generally considers that implementation of the proposed project would have a significant 

impact if it were to: 

 

 

 

 

Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in 

CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, including those resources listed in Article 10 or Article 11 

of the San Francisco Planning Code; 

Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical or unique archaeological 

resource pursuant to Section 15064.5; 

Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological 

feature; or 

Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries pursuant 

to California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. 


For this analysis, both direct and indirect effects of project implementation were considered. 

Direct impacts are typically associated with construction and/or ground-disturbing activities, and 

have the potential to immediately alter, diminish, or destroy all or part of the character and 

quality of archaeological resources, historic architecture, and/or paleontological remains. Indirect 

impacts are typically associated with post project implementation conditions that have the 

potential to alter or diminish the historic setting of a cultural resource (generally historic 

architecture) by the introduction of undesirable auditory or visual intrusions. 

The potential for the PPSU project to adversely affect cultural and paleontological resources 

would be limited to construction activities. As no permanent aboveground, project-related 

features are to be introduced, indirect affects to cultural resources are not anticipated. Ground 

disturbance and excavation during construction activities could disturb or destroy known and 

previously unrecorded, buried, archaeological and paleontological resources and human 

remains. Project construction activities could also generate vibrations through the use of 

vibratory equipment, such as large bulldozers and vibratory compactors, or through high-impact 

construction methods, such as pile driving and sheetpile driving as required for shoring, that 

could cause cosmetic, architectural, and structural damage to nearby historic buildings and 

structures. Operation of the proposed project would have no effect on cultural resources because 

project operations would not cause additional ground disturbance or generate strong vibrations. 

Therefore, the analysis below focuses on construction related impacts on cultural and 


PPSU project operations would have no impacts related to the following significance criteria: 





 

Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource or unique 

archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5, directly or indirectly destroy a unique 

paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature, or disturb human remains. 

During project operations, project activities would be similar to existing operations and 

maintenance activities at the project sites, and would include yearly visual inspections, and 

may include water discharge from the manholes, as required by other SFPUC projects or 

inspections. Approximately every 10 to 15 years, inspections would entail physically entering 

the manholes for visual inspections inside the pipelines. Therefore, the significance criteria 

related to cultural resources are not applicable to the project operations, and are only 

analyzed below for project construction activities. 

Additionally, as described in Section 5.5.1.1, the common staging area was determined not to be 

within the C-APE, and therefore is not presented in Table 5.5-3 nor discussed in this section. 

Summary of Impacts 

Table 5.5-3 lists the proposed project’s cultural and paleontological resource impacts and 

provides significance determinations. 

Cultural Resources 

In considering impact significance under CEQA, the significance of the cultural resource itself 

must first be determined. At the State level, consideration of significance as an “historical 

resource” is measured by cultural resource provisions considered under CEQA Sections 15064.5 

and 15126.4, and the criteria regarding resource eligibility to the CRHR. These criteria apply to 

both archaeological and historic architectural resources. 

Impacts to “unique archaeological resources” are also considered under CEQA, as described under 

PRC 21083.2. A nonunique archaeological resource indicates an archaeological artifact, object, or 

site that does not meet the above criteria. Impacts to nonunique archaeological and resources that 

do not qualify for listing on the CRHR receive no further consideration under CEQA. 

Therefore, potential impacts to identified cultural resources need only be considered if the 

resource is a “historical resource” or “unique archaeological resource” under the provisions of 

CEQA Sections 15064.5 and 15126.4 and the eligibility criteria. 

Section 15064.5 of CEQA also assigns special importance to human remains, and specifies 

procedures to be used when Native American remains are discovered. These procedures are 

detailed under PRC Section 5097.98. 

Paleontological Resources 

In considering impact significance under CEQA, impacts to fossils is considered under 

PRC 21000 et seq. CEQA requires that public agencies and private interests identify the 

significance of the impacts of their proposed projects on any object or site of significance to the 

scientific annals of California (CEQA Section 15064.5 [a][3]); this requirement applies to 






Table 5.5-3 

Summary of Impacts – Cultural Resources 

Significance Determination 1 

Impact 

Colma 




North 


South 

Millbrae 

Impact CP-1: Project 

construction would not cause 

a substantial adverse change 

in the significance of a 

historical resource. 


construction could cause a 

substantial adverse change in 

the significance of a historical 

or unique archaeological 

resource. 



substantial adverse effect by 

directly or indirectly 

destroying a unique 

paleontological resource or 

site. 



substantial adverse effect 

related to the disturbance of 

human remains. 

Impact C-CP: Project 



contribution to cumulative 

impacts on cultural resources 

such as archaeological sites 

(historical and/or unique) 

including those with human 

remains, historic architectural, 

or paleontological resources. 

NI NI NI NI LS 

LSM LSM NI LSM LSM 




Notes: 



LSM = Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation incorporated 

1 

As noted in Section 5.5.1.1, CEQA Area of Potential Effects, the common staging area is not included in the C-APE for 

the PPSU project; project-related activities proposed at this location would not affect cultural or paleontological 

resources (SF Planning, 2008a). 






Impact CP-1: Project construction would not cause a substantial adverse change in the 

significance of a historical resource. (Less than Significant) 

As detailed in the historic architectural technical report prepared for the PPSU project (URS, 

2012b), a single historical resource (i.e., CRHR-listed or eligible resource) was identified within 

the C-APE, at the Millbrae site. The Green Hills Country Club, as a whole, appears to be eligible 

for listing in the NRHP and CRHR under NRHP Criterion C and CRHR Criterion 3, as a 

distinctive example of a Dr. Alister MacKenzie-designed golf course (designed landscape). 

The Green Hills Country Club encompasses approximately 143 acres (which represents the limits of 

the historical resource). The golf course is a characteristic MacKenzie-designed course, with a 

challenging terrain, aesthetically integrated interlocking features of a core-type (continuous) 

course, distinctive bunkering, small hillocks around greens, and a design that follows natural 

ground contours (Shackelford, 2003). Character-defining landscape features include MacKenziedesigned 

holes, greens, fairways, bunkers, pathways, and associated landscaping that remain 

mostly intact. Noncontributing landscape features include two nonhistoric period ponds, 

nonhistoric period practice green and driving range, nonhistoric period parking lot, and several 

nonhistoric buildings and structures, including a clubhouse, pool, two maintenance buildings, 

and tennis courts. Project construction within the SFPUC ROW located on the Green Hills 

Country Club would entail open-trench construction methods, and therefore would represent a 

potential direct impact to this identified historical resource. As specified in Chapter 3, Project 

Description, the pipe replacement would generally include the following activities: 

(1) preparation of the site, including removal of vegetation and grading; (2) trench excavation 

and shoring, as necessary; (3) removal of existing pipe and installation of new pipe; (4) trench 

backfill and compacting; and (5) surface restoration. The surface of the site would be restored, 

and would match its pre-construction appearance following the seismic upgrades. The 

improvements would not impact original materials, and the surface restoration would match 

physically and visually with the existing landscape materials, vegetation, and topography, in 

accordance with the SFPUC’s Right-of-Way Integrated Vegetation Management Policy (SFPUC, 

2007). Construction of the project, including the removal of trees within the SFPUC ROW, would 

not obstruct or diminish the significance of the character-defining features of MacKenzie’s course, 

which include the routing and location of the fairways, greens, holes, bunkers, and pathways. 

The improvements would maintain the historic use and character of the property, and be 

completed in-kind to existing materials, matching its pre-construction appearance when 

completed. Therefore, although the construction represents a direct impact, it is only temporary 

and would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of the Green Hills Country 

Club or its golf course, and therefore impacts would be less than significant. 

Impact CP-2: Project construction could cause a substantial adverse change in the 

significance of a historical or unique archaeological resource. (Less than Significant 

with Mitigation) 

This impact analysis addresses potential impacts to archaeological sites that qualify as either 

historical resources (i.e., CRHR-listed or eligible-to-be-listed resource) or unique archaeological 

resources (i.e., meets the threshold of PRC Section 21083). As detailed in the archaeological 





technical report prepared for the PPSU project (URS, 2012a), no archaeological resources were 

identified within the C-APE defined for the proposed project. Prefield research did reveal, however, 

that one prehistoric archaeological site CA-SMA-95 is purportedly within the immediate vicinity of 

the C-APE as it relates to the San Bruno South site. In addition to this known site, two of the project 

components, Colma and South San Francisco, include some construction within undisturbed soils 

of moderate archaeological sensitivity. Although no archaeological resources are known within the 

C-APE, given the reported presence of CA-SMA-95 in the immediate vicinity of the C-APE and the 

soils of moderate archaeological sensitivity within specific portions of the C-APE, impacts to such 

resources cannot be discounted at the Colma, South San Francisco and San Bruno South sites. 

Additionally, although it is unlikely given the low archaeological sensitivity of the Millbrae site, the 

inadvertent exposure of an archaeological resource cannot be completely dismissed, given that 

construction would occur within undisturbed soils. Implementation of the project, including 

excavation, trenching, grading, and the movement of heavy construction vehicles and equipment, 

could expose and disturb or damage previously unrecorded archaeological resources at the Colma, 

South San Francisco, San Bruno South, and Millbrae sites, which could result in a substantial 

adverse change in the potential significance of a historical or unique archaeological resource. At the 

San Bruno North site, there would be no impact because all proposed excavation is confined to 

previously disturbed soils where intact archaeological materials would not occur. 

Any impact resulting from the disturbance of historical and/or unique archaeological resources 

during construction would be a potentially significant impact, but would be reduced to a less-thansignificant 

level with implementation of Mitigation Measure M-CP-2a: Distribute “ALERT” 

Sheet; Mitigation Measure M-CP-2b: Conduct Archaeological Monitoring in Accordance with 

Approved Archaeological Monitoring Plan; and, if necessary, Mitigation Measure M-CP-2c: 

Prepare and Comply with an Archaeological Evaluation Plan and Evaluation Report. These 

measures would reduce impacts to previously unidentified archaeological resources by ensuring 

that resources are identified and protected upon discovery, and if necessary by implementing an 

appropriate treatment strategy such as archaeological data recovery. Therefore, impacts would be 

less than significant with mitigation at the Colma, South San Francisco, San Bruno South , and 

Millbrae sites. There would be no impact at San Bruno North site. 

Mitigation Measure M-CP-2a: Distribute “ALERT” Sheet 

This mitigation measure applies to the Colma, South San Francisco, San Bruno South, 

and Millbrae sites only. At these sites, there is a potential for the inadvertent discovery of 

archaeological resources because all require excavation into previously undisturbed soils. 

To avoid any potential adverse effects on accidentally discovered buried cultural 

resources, as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a)(c), the SFPUC shall 

distribute the San Francisco Planning Department’s archaeological resource “ALERT” 

sheet to the project prime contractor; to any subcontractors (including firms 

subcontracted to perform demolition, excavation, grading, foundation, and pile driving); 

and/or to any utilities firms involved in any and all soil-disturbing activities within the 

PPSU C-APE. Prior to any soil-disturbing activities, each contractor shall be responsible 

for ensuring that the ALERT sheet is circulated to all field personnel, including machine 

operators, field crew, pile drivers, and supervisory personnel. The SFPUC shall provide 

the Environmental Review Officer (ERO) with the sign-in sheet from the responsible parties 





(i.e., prime contractor, subcontractor[s], and utilities firm) confirming that all field 

personnel have received copies of the ALERT sheet. 

Should any indication of an archeological resource be encountered during any soildisturbing 

activity, SFPUC and/or the contractor shall immediately suspend the soildisturbing 

activities in the vicinity of the discovery, and shall notify the ERO 

immediately. Ground-disturbing activities within 50 feet of the discovery shall remain 

suspended until the ERO has determined what additional measures should be 

undertaken. 

If an archaeological resource is present, the archaeological monitor retained for the 

project (see Mitigation Measure M-CP-2b) shall identify and evaluate the archaeological 

resource. The archaeological monitor shall make a recommendation as to what action, if 

any, is warranted. Based on this information, the ERO may require, if warranted, specific 

additional measures to be implemented by the SFPUC. These measures might include 

preservation in situ of the archaeological resource; or an archaeological evaluation 

program (see Mitigation Measure M-CP-2c). 

Mitigation Measure M-CP-2b: Conduct Archaeological Monitoring in Accordance with 

Approved Archaeological Monitoring Plan 

This mitigation measure applies to the Colma, South San Francisco, and San Bruno South 

sites only. At these sites, portions of the C-APE are of elevated archaeological sensitivity. 

The SFPUC will retain a qualified archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s 

professional standards for archaeology and, as necessary, a Native American monitor to 

be present during specific ground disturbing activities at specific locations within the 

Colma, South San Francisco, and San Bruno South sites as stipulated within the 

Archaeological Monitoring Plan (AMP) to be prepared for the project (URS, 2012a). The 

monitoring shall be conducted in accordance with the approved AMP. Archaeological 

monitoring is not required at the Millbrae site, given the low archaeological sensitivity of 

the soils occurring within that portion of the C-APE. 

Mitigation Measure M-CP-2c: Prepare and Comply with an Archaeological Evaluation 

Plan and Evaluation Report 


and Millbrae sites only. In the event archaeological resources are inadvertently exposed 

during any project-related construction, all ground-disturbing work within 50 feet of the 

discovery shall immediately cease, and the SFPUC Project Manager and the ERO shall be 

notified immediately. In consultation with the SFPUC, the ERO, and the San Francisco 

Planning Department’s Environmental Planning Division archaeologist or Designee, the 

monitoring archaeologist shall prepare an Archaeological Evaluation Plan (AEP) consistent 

with the requirements of the San Francisco Planning Department, Environmental Planning 

Division (EP) WSIP Archaeological Guidance No. 5. The AEP shall create a program to 

determine the potential of the expected resource to meet the California Register criteria— 

particularly Criterion 4, the resource’s potential to address important research questions 

identified in the AEP—and the archaeologist shall submit this plan to the ERO for 

approval. The archaeologist shall then conduct an evaluation consistent with the ERO- 





approved AEP. The methods and findings of the evaluation shall be presented in an 

Archaeological Evaluation and Effects Report consistent with EP WSIP Archaeological 

Guidance No. 6, which shall be submitted to the ERO upon completion. 

Based on the conclusions of the Archaeological Evaluation and Effects Report, the 

Environmental Planning Division Archeologist or Designee shall determine if the project 

will adversely affect a CEQA-significant archaeological resource. If the project will have an 

adverse effect on such a resource, an Archaeological Research Design and Treatment Plan 

shall be prepared by the archaeologist and submitted to the ERO. The Archaeological 

Research Design and Treatment Plan shall be prepared consistent with the EP (formerly 

MEA) WSIP Archaeological Guidance No. 7. Once approved by the ERO, a data-recovery 

investigation and/or other treatment shall be conducted by the archaeologist. 

Impact CP-3: Project construction could result in a substantial adverse effect by 

directly destroying a unique paleontological resource or site. (Less than Significant with 

Mitigation) 

As described in the paleontological analysis presented in the technical report (URS, 2012c), the 

paleontological C-APE for the PPSU project is underlain by artificial fill, Holocene alluvium, slope 

debris and ravine fill, Colma Formation, Merced Formation, and Franciscan Complex Geologic 

units. No paleontological resources are known to exist within the project C-APE according to the 

University of California Museum of Paleontology database; however, paleontological resources 

have been found in the some of the same geologic contexts as that which occur within the PPSU 

project area. Fossils are typically a buried resource, and therefore impacts on them are determined 

based on the probability or potential that fossils may be present within a rock unit. Table 5.5-4 

summarizes the rock units in the project area, their paleontological potential based on the 

application of the SVP Guidelines, and their potential to be disturbed by project construction 

activity. Project construction could result in a substantial adverse effect by directly destroying a 

unique paleontological resource or site at all projects sites, except for the San Bruno North site, 

where no excavation of undisturbed soils is proposed. However, these potential impacts to 

paleontological resources at the Colma, South San Francisco, San Bruno South, and Millbrae sites 

would be reduced to less-than-significant levels with implementation of Mitigation Measure M- 

CP-3: Prepare and Implement a Paleontological Resources Monitoring Program. Implementation 

of Mitigation Measure M-CP-3 would address the PPSU project’s potential construction-related 

impacts on paleontological resources by requiring development of a paleontological plan; 

paleontological resources training for all construction forepersons and field supervisors; 

construction monitoring in accordance with the monitoring plan; and adherence to appropriate 

protocols for assessing and salvaging any potential fossil finds. Therefore, impacts would be less 

than significant with mitigation at the Colma, South San Francisco, San Bruno South and Millbrae 

sites, and there would be no impact at the San Bruno North site. 

Mitigation Measure M-CP-3: Prepare and Implement a Paleontological Resources 

Monitoring Program. 


and Millbrae sites only. Prior to the initiation of any site preparation or start of 

construction, SFPUC shall retain a qualified professional paleontologist or a California 





Table 5.5-4 

Impact Potential to Paleontological Resources for Geologic Rock Units within the C-APE 

Geologic Rock Unit and Units 

Paleontological Sensitivity Rating 1 

Artificial Fill 

Low Sensitivity 

Alluvial Deposits 


Slope debris and ravine fill 

High Sensitivity 

Colma Formation 


Merced Formation 


Franciscan Complex 


Potential Disturbance of Significant 

Paleontological Resource within 

Project Component? 

Colma Site 


Francisco Site 


North Site 2 


South Site 

Millbrae 

Site 

No No Yes Yes Yes 

Yes Yes No No No 

Yes Yes No No No 

Yes Yes Yes No Yes 

No No No Yes Yes 

No No No Yes No 

Yes Yes No 2 Yes Yes 

Source: PPSU project analysis, URS. 

Notes: 

1 Paleontological sensitivity ratings are based on Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (1995) Conformable Impact 

Mitigation Guidelines. 

2 Project construction at San Bruno North Site does not include excavation of undisturbed soils. Therefore, although 

soils of elevated paleontological sensitivity occur in the project vicinity, project implementation will not result in 

disturbance of paleontological resources. 

Professional Geologist with appropriate paleontological expertise, as defined by the Society 

of Vertebrate Paleontology’s Conformable Impact Mitigation Guidelines Committee (SVP, 

1995), to carry out a paleontological resources training program for construction workers 

and to develop a paleontological monitoring program, except at the San Bruno North site. 

The SFPUC shall require the paleontologist to be on call throughout the duration of 

ground-disturbing activities. At a minimum, the monitoring program shall include: 

 

 

Preparation of a Paleontological Monitoring Plan. Based on the results of the 

paleontological investigation completed for the PPSU project (URS, 2012c), the 

volume and depth of proposed soil excavations, and professional judgment, the 

paleontologist shall identify the specific locales and depths within the project 

components where geologic units of high paleontological sensitivity occur, and to 

determine the frequency in which monitoring will be undertaken to ensure the 

proper management of paleontological resources. The SFPUC shall review and 

approve the plan in consultation with the ERO. 

Paleontological Resources Training. All construction forepersons and field 

supervisors shall be trained in the recognition of potential fossil materials prior to the 

initiation of any site preparation or start of construction. Training on paleontological 

resources shall also be provided to all other construction workers, but may include 





videotape of the initial training and/or the use of written materials rather than inperson 

training by the qualified paleontologist. In addition to fossil recognition, the 

training shall convey procedures to follow if construction crews encounter potential 

fossil materials in the course of earthwork, excavation, or grading, as described below. 

 

 

Active Monitoring of Construction Sites for Paleontological Resources, if 

Recommended in the Paleontological Monitoring Plan. Paleontological monitoring 

shall consist of inspecting disturbed, graded, and excavated surfaces, as well as soil 

stockpiles and disposal sites in accordance with the schedule and methods outlined 

in the Paleontological Monitoring Plan. The monitor (i.e., the professional 

paleontologist or a designee of the paleontologist) shall have authority to divert 

grading or excavation away from exposed surfaces temporarily in order to examine 

disturbed areas more closely and/or recover fossils. The monitor shall coordinate 

with the construction manager to ensure that monitoring is thorough but does not 

result in unnecessary delays. If the monitor encounters a paleontological resource, he 

or she shall assess the fossil, and record or salvage it, as described above. 

Assessment and Salvage of Potential Fossil Finds. If the paleontological monitor or 

construction crews discover potential fossils, all earthwork or other types of ground 

disturbance within 50 feet of the find shall stop immediately until the qualified 

professional paleontologist can assess the nature and importance of the find. Based on 

the scientific value or uniqueness of the find, the monitor may record the find and allow 

work to continue, or recommend salvage and recovery of the fossil. The monitor may 

also propose modifications to the stop-work radius based on the nature of the find, site 

geology, and the activities occurring on the site. Recommendations for any necessary 

treatment shall be consistent with the SVP 1995 and 1996 guidelines and currently 

accepted scientific practices. If required, treatment for fossil remains may include 

preparation and recovery of fossil materials so that they can be housed in an appropriate 

museum or university collection, and may also include preparation and publication of a 

report describing the finds. The monitor’s recommendations shall be subject to review 

and approval by the ERO or designee. The SFPUC shall be responsible for ensuring that 

treatment is implemented and reported to the San Francisco Planning Department. If no 

report is required, the SFPUC shall nonetheless ensure that information on the nature, 

location, and depth of all finds is readily available to the scientific community through 

university curation or other appropriate means. 

Impact CP-4: Project construction could result in a substantial adverse effect related to 

the disturbance of human remains. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) 

Although no known human burial locations have been identified within the project C-APE, the 

possibility that human humans could be inadvertently exposed during ground-disturbing 

activities cannot be entirely discounted, except at the San Bruno North site where no excavation 

of undisturbed soils is proposed. Therefore, implementation of the project could result in direct 

impacts on previously undiscovered human remains, including those interred outside of formal 

cemeteries during any ground-disturbing activities. Any impact resulting from the disturbance of 

human remains during construction would be potentially significant, but would be reduced to a 

less-than-significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure M-CP-4: Treatment of 





Inadvertently Discovered Human Remains. Implementation of Mitigation Measure M-CP-4 

would address impacts on any human remains and associated funerary objects that are 

inadvertently exposed during project construction activities by requiring the SFPUC to adhere to 

appropriate excavation, removal, recordation, analysis, custodianship, curation, and final 

disposition protocols. Therefore, impacts related to disturbance of human remains would be less 

than significant with mitigation at the Colma, South San Francisco, San Bruno South, and 

Millbrae sites. There would be no impact at the San Bruno North site. 

Mitigation Measure M-CP-4: Treatment of Inadvertently Discovered Human Remains. 


and Millbrae sites only. The treatment of any human remains and associated funerary 

objects discovered during soil-disturbing activities shall comply with applicable state laws. 

Such treatment would include immediate notification of the San Mateo County coroner and, 

in the event of the coroner’s determination that the human remains are Native American, 

notification of the NAHC, which would appoint a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) (PRC 

Section 5097.98). The archaeological consultant, SFPUC, and MLD shall make all reasonable 

efforts to develop an agreement for the treatment, with appropriate dignity, of any human 

remains and associated objects (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[d]). The agreement would 

take into consideration the appropriate excavation, removal, recordation, analysis, 

custodianship, curation, and final disposition of the human remains and associated or 

unassociated funerary objects. 

The PRC allows 48 hours to reach agreement on these matters. If the MLD and the other 

parties could not agree on the reburial method, the SFPUC shall follow Section 5097.98(b) 

of the PRC, which states that “the landowner or his or her authorized representative shall 

reinter the human remains and items associated with Native American burials with 

appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface 

disturbance.” All archaeological work performed under this mitigation measure shall be 

subject to review by the ERO or designee. 


There would be no change in the current operation of SAPL2, SAPL3, nor SSBPL following 

completion of the proposed seismic upgrades. Therefore, there would be no impact on historical 

cultural resources, unique archaeological resources, or paleontological resources as a result of 

project implementation. 


Impact C-CP: Project construction could result in a cumulatively considerable 

contribution to cumulative impacts on cultural resources such as archaeological sites 

(historical and/or unique) including those with human remains, historic architectural or 

paleontological resources. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) 

The geographic scope for cumulative impacts on cultural resources includes the individual 

archaeological, historic architectural and paleontological C-APEs as defined for the PPSU project, 





and for archaeological and paleontological resources, the San Francisco Peninsula region as a 

whole. Because historic architectural resource impacts are site specific, the geographic context for 

the analysis of cumulative impacts is the overlapping area of potential effects on a single 

architectural resource. The PPSU project would contribute to cumulative impacts on cultural 

resources, including historical, archaeological, and paleontological resources, if the PPSU project 

and other projects listed in Table 5.1-1 were to adversely affect cultural resources in the project 

vicinity. 

At the San Bruno North site, the PPSU project would have no cultural resource impacts; 

therefore, there would be no cumulative impacts at the San Bruno North site, and it is not 

analyzed below. 

Historic Architecture 

As described above, the Green Hills Country Club is the only historical resource within the PPSU 

project’s C-APE. The PPSU project would not impact its original materials, and the surface 

restoration would match physically and visually the existing landscape materials, vegetation, and 

topography. Although the construction represents a direct impact, it is only temporary and 

would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of this historical resource. 

Construction of the project, including the removal of trees within the SFPUC ROW, would not 

obstruct or diminish the significance of the character-defining features of MacKenzie’s course, 

which include the routing and location of the fairways, greens, holes, bunkers, and pathways. 

The improvements would maintain the historic use and character of the property, and be 

completed in-kind to existing materials, matching its pre-construction appearance when 

completed. None of the other present and probable future cumulative projects would affect this 

resource. Therefore, the cumulative impacts to historic architectural resources would be less than 

significant. 

Archaeology 

During ground-disturbing activity, there is a potential for the cumulative projects to encounter 

previously unidentified cultural resources, including archaeological resources. Disturbance of 

these resources during construction of the PPSU project or other cumulative projects could result 

in significant cumulative impacts on archaeological resources. The PPSU project’s contribution to 

this impact could be cumulatively considerable. However, implementation of Mitigation 

Measures M-CP-2a: Distribute “ALERT” Sheet, Mitigation Measure M-CP-2b: Conduct 

Archaeological Monitoring in Accordance with Approved Archaeological Monitoring Plan, 

and M-CP-2c: Prepare and Comply with an Archaeological Evaluation Plan and Evaluation 

Report require distribution of the “ALERT” sheet at areas with potential for accidental discovery 

of buried cultural resources, and the preparation and implementation of an approved 

Archaeological Monitoring Plan in areas of high archaeological sensitivity (Colma, South San 

Francisco, and San Bruno South sites). These mitigation measures include contractor education 

and immediate cessation of work within 50 feet of an archaeological discovery. The 

implementation of the plan provides for actions that, if necessary, include a data-recovery 

investigation and/or other treatment to be conducted by an archaeologist. These measures would 

reduce potential PPSU project impacts to de minimis levels. Therefore, with implementation of 

project mitigation measures, the PPSU project would not have a cumulatively considerable 





contribution to archaeological impacts, and impacts would be less than significant with 

mitigation. 

Paleontology 

Significant impacts to inadvertently exposed paleontological resources could occur with 

implementation of projects listed in Table 5.1-1 because the projects could entail excavation in 

soils with high paleontological sensitivity, potentially resulting in disturbance of paleontological 

resources. Similarly, the proposed project could impact paleontological resources, given that 

portions of the project sites are located in areas of high sensitivity. The PPSU project’s 

contribution to this impact could be cumulatively considerable. However, implementation of 

Mitigation Measure M-CP-3: Prepare and Implement a Paleontological Resources Monitoring 

Program requires the contractor to carry out a paleontological resources training program for 

construction workers and to develop a paleontological monitoring program in areas of high 

paleontological sensitivity. The plan will include active monitoring, assessment, sand salvage of 

potential fossil finds. With implementation of this project mitigation measure, the PPSU project’s 

potential impacts to paleontological resources would be reduced to de minimis levels. Therefore, 

the project would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to paleontological resources 

impacts, and impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. 

Discovery of Human Remains 

The cumulative projects, together with the PPSU project, could disturb human remains during 

ground-disturbing activities. Inadvertent disturbance of human remains would result in 

significant cumulative adverse impacts if the remains are not properly handled, analyzed, and 

treated. With implementation of Mitigation Measure M-CP-4: Treatment of Inadvertently 

Discovered Human Remains, applicable state laws governing the treatment of human remains 

would be followed and appropriate excavation, removal, recordation, analysis, custodianship, 

curation, and final disposition protocols would be executed, thus reducing potential PPSU project 

impacts to de minimis levels. Therefore, the proposed project’s impact on human remains would 

not be cumulatively considerable , and impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. 


Alexander, Philip W. and Charles P. Hamm, 1916. History of San Mateo County. Burlingame, 

CA: Press of Burlingame Publishing Co. 

Ames, David and Linda Flint McClelland, 2002. National Register Bulletin: Historic Residential 

Suburbs. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, National 

Register of Historic Places. 

Beck, Warren, and Ynez D. Haase, 1974. Historical Atlas of California. University of Oklahoma 

Press, Norman, Oklahoma. 

Bethel, John P., ed., 1969. Webster’s Geographical Dictionary. G. & C. Merriam Co. The Collegiate 

Press, Menasha, Wisconsin. 





Bonilla M.G., 1998. Preliminary Geologic Map of the San Francisco South 7.5' Quadrangle and 

Part of the Hunters Point 7.5' Quadrangle, San Francisco Bay Area, California: A Digital 

Database. Digital Database prepared by Carl Wentworth, Marjorie Lucks, Heather Schoonover, 

Scott Graham, and Thomas May. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 98-354, 1:24,000. 

Brabb, E.E., R.W. Graymer, and D.L. Jones, 1998. Geology of the Onshore Part of San Mateo 

County, California: A Digital Database: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 98 137, 1:62,500. 

Chandler, Samuel C., 1973. “Gateway to the Peninsula,” A History of the City of Daly City. Daly 

City, CA: City of Daly City. 

Chavez, David and Jan M. Hupman, 1991. Cultural Resources Evaluation for the San Francisco 

International Airport Master Plan EIR, San Mateo County, California. David Chavez & 

Associates. Report prepared for Environmental Science Associates, Inc. San Francisco. 

City of Millbrae, 1962. Millbrae Meadows No. 5 Subdivision Map. http://gis.co.sanmateo.ca.us. 

February. Accessed May 23, 2011. 

City of San Bruno, 2011. History of the City of San Bruno. Online: www.sanbruno.ca.gov/ 

commissions/History%20of%20San%20Bruno.pdf. Accessed November 2011. 

City of South San Francisco, 1946. Rancho Buri Buri Subdivision Map. gis.co.sanmateo.ca.us. 

March. Accessed on November 18, 2011. 

City of South San Francisco, 2011. “History of South San Francisco.” Online: www.ssf.net/index. 

aspx?nid=154. Accessed November 2011. 

Cloud, Roy W., 1928. History of San Mateo County, California. Chicago: The S.J. Clarke 

Publishing Company. 

Cook, Sherburne F., 1943a. The Conflict between the California Indian and White Civilization, I: 

The Indian Versus the Spanish Mission. Ibero-Americana 21. Berkeley. 

Cook, Sherburne F., 1943b. The Conflict between the California Indian and White Civilization, II: 

The Physical and Demographic Reaction of the Non-mission Indians in Colonial and Provincial 

California. Ibero-Americana 22. Berkeley. 

Cornish, Geoffrey S. and Ronald E. Whitten, 1993. The Architects of Golf. New York: Harper 

Collins Publishers. 

Donley, Michael W., Stuart Allan, Patricia Caro and Clyde P. Patton, 1979. Atlas of California. 

Pacific Book Center, Culver City, California. 

Fredricks, Darold, 2003. Images of America: San Bruno. Charleston, SC: Arcadia Publishing. 

FWLA (Fugro William Lettis & Associates, Inc.), 2011. Final Report, Fault Rupture Hazard 

Assessment. San Andreas Numbers 2 and 3 and Sunset Supply Branch Pipelines Serra Fault Zone 

Crossings, San Bruno and Millbrae, California. January. 





GTC (Geotechnical Consultants, Inc.), 2011a. Final Geotechnical Data Report, Peninsula Pipelines 

Seismic Upgrade, CS 101. March. 




Report, Peninsula Pipelines Upgrade, CS 101, SF10016C, November. 

Hoover, Mildred B., Hero E. Rensch, and Ethel G. Rensch, 1990. Historic Spots in California. 

Fourth Edition Revised by Douglas E. Kyle. Stanford University Press. Stanford, California. 

ICF (ICF Jones & Stokes), 2009. Final Historic Context and Cultural Resources Survey Report for 

the Harry Tracy Water Treatment Plan Long-Term Improvements Project, San Mateo County. 

JRP (JRP Historical Consulting, LLC), 2008a. Historical Resources Evaluation Report for the San 

Andreas Pipeline No. 3 Installation Project. 

JRP (JRP Historical Consulting, LLC), 2008b. Analysis of Historic Districts Potentially Impacted 

by San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Water System Improvement Program Projects. 

Kennedy, D.G., 2002. Neotectonic Character of the Serra fault, Northern San Francisco Peninsula, 

California: unpublished M.S. thesis, San Francisco State University, 117 p. 

Kroeber, Alfred L., 1976. Handbook of the Indians of California. Reprinted. Dover Publications, 

Inc., New York. Originally published 1925, Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 78, 

Washington, D.C. 

Levy, Richard, 1978. Costanoan. Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 8, California, 

edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 485-499. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 

McGimsey, Charles R. III and Hester A. Davis, 1977. The Management of Archaeological 

Resources, The Airlee House Report. Special Publication of the Society for American 

Archaeology. 

Milan, Clark, 2010. Millbrae Patch, “How Millbrae Got Its Name.” Online: www.millbrae.patch. 

com/articles/how-millbrae-got-its-name. Accessed on June 23, 2011. 

Millbrae Historical Society, 2007. Images of America: Millbrae. Charleston, NC: Arcadia 

Publishing. 

Moratto, Michael J., 1984. California Archaeology. Academic Press, New York. 

NPS (National Park Service), 1998. NPS-28: Cultural Resource Management Guideline. USDI 

NPS, Office of Policy, Washington, D.C. 

Pampeyan, E.H., 1994. Geologic Map of the Montara Mountain and San Mateo 7½ minute 

Quadrangles, San Mateo County, California: U.S. Geological Survey Map I 2390, 1:24,000. 





Praetzellis, Adrian, 2009. Memo to File, Archaeological Sensitivity for Categorical Exemptions. 

Provided to URS by SFEP for use on various WSIP projects. 

Sanborn Map Company, 1949. Fire Insurance Maps of California: Millbrae. Accessed through the 

San Diego Public Library. 

Shackelford, Geoff, 2003. Grounds for Golf. New York: Thomas Dunne Books, St. Martin’s Press. 

SF Planning (City and County of San Francisco, San Francisco Planning Department), 2008a. 

Baden and San Pedro Valve Lots Improvement Project Mitigated Negative Declaration. Case No. 

2006.1314E. September. 

SF Planning (City and County of San Francisco, San Francisco Planning Department), 2008b. San 

Francisco Planning Department. San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Water System 

Improvement Program. Final Environmental Impact Report (Case No. 2005.0159E, State 

Clearinghouse No. 200509206). San Francisco Planning Commission Motion No. 17734. 

October 30. 


Crystal Springs Pipeline No. 2 Replacement Project Draft Environmental Impact Report. San 

Francisco, California. 



Shipley, William F., 1978. “Native Languages in California.” In Handbook of North American 

Indians, Volume 8, California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 80-90. Smithsonian Institution, 

Washington, D.C. 

Sonoma State University, 2012. Memorandum Regarding Revision of Peninsula Pipelines Seismic 

Upgrade, San Bruno South C-APE. From Adrian Praetzellis to Steve Smith, San Francisco 

Environmental Planning. October. 

Sonoma State University, 2013. Memorandum Regarding C-APE Revision, Peninsula Pipeline 

Seismic Upgrade, Millbrae. From Adrian Praetzellis to Steve Smith, San Francisco Environmental 

Planning. January 18. 

South San Francisco Historical Society, 2004. Images of America: South San Francisco. Charleston, 

SC: Arcadia Publishing. 

SVP (Society of Vertebrate Paleontology), 1995. Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to 

Nonrenewable Paleontologic Resources: Standard Guidelines. Society of Vertebrate Paleontology 

News Bulletin 163:22–27. 

SVP (Society of Vertebrate Paleontology), 1996. Conditions of Receivership for Paleontologic 

Salvage Collections. Society of Vertebrate Paleontology News Bulletin 166:31 32. 

Town of Colma, 2011. “History of Colma.” Online: www.colma.ca.gov/index.php?option=com_ 

content&view=article&id=48&Itemid=56. Accessed November 2011. 





URS, 2012a. Peninsula Pipelines Seismic Upgrade Project. Historic Context and Archaeological 

Survey Report, Final. April. Confidential Report. 

URS, 2012b. Peninsula Pipelines Seismic Upgrade Project. Historic Resources Evaluation Report, 

Final. August. 

URS, 2012c. Peninsula Pipelines Seismic Upgrade Project. Paleontological Resources Survey 

Report, Final. April. 

URS, 2012d. Peninsula Pipelines Seismic Upgrade Project. CEQA Area of Potential Effects Report 

for Archaeological Resources, Revised Final. January. 





This section provides an overview of existing transportation conditions within the Peninsula 

Pipelines Seismic Upgrade (PPSU) project area, evaluates the potential impacts to traffic, 

transportation, and circulation that could result from implementation of the project, and 

identifies mitigation measures, as appropriate. 

5.6.1 Setting 

The transportation setting for the study area, including the regional access routes in the project 

vicinity, local and site access and parking, traffic conditions at key intersections, public transit 

routes, bicycle networks, and pedestrian facilities, is described below. 

5.6.1.1 Regional Access 

Interstate 280 

Interstate 280 (I-280) is a north-south freeway that runs between the U.S. Highway 101 (U.S. 101) 

and Interstate 680 interchange in San Jose, and the King Street ramps in San Francisco. I-280 

would provide the primary regional access to the study area. In the vicinity of the project sites, it 

is an eight-lane freeway with four travel lanes in each direction. Access to the Colma site from 

I-280 is provided via the northbound on-ramp and southbound off-ramp at Serramonte 

Boulevard, and the northbound and southbound on-ramps and off-ramps at Hickey Boulevard. 

Access from I-280 to the South San Francisco site is provided via on-ramps and off-ramps at 

Westborough Boulevard. Access to the San Bruno North and South sites from I-280 is provided 

via on-ramps and off-ramps at San Bruno Avenue West. Access to the San Bruno South sites is 

also provided via the northbound on-ramp and southbound off-ramp connecting with 

Cunningham Way (to the east of the intersection of Whitman Way/Shelter Creek Lane). Access 

from I-280 to the Millbrae site is provided via on-ramp and off-ramps at Larkspur Drive, and the 

southbound on-ramp at Hillcrest Boulevard. 

U.S. Highway 101 

U.S. 101 is a north-south freeway spanning much of the length of California. It extends north 

across the Golden Gate Bridge to Marin County and the Pacific Northwest, and south to San Jose 

and Los Angeles. It is primarily an eight-lane freeway along the San Francisco Peninsula, south of 

Interstate 80 in San Francisco. U.S. 101 would also provide regional access to the Millbrae site. 

El Camino Real 

El Camino Real (State Route 82) generally runs parallel to U.S. 101 and serves as a regional access 

route. El Camino Real has six travel lanes between Colma and Millbrae, with the exception of the 

segment between Hickey Road and Mission Road, which has four travel lanes. 

5.6.1.2 Local and Site Access and Parking 

Local access in the vicinity of the study area and access to the project sites are described below. 





Colma Site 

Roadways providing access to the Colma site include Serramonte Boulevard and Collins Avenue. 

Serramonte Boulevard is an east-west arterial that extends between St. Francis Boulevard and 

Hillsdale Boulevard. In the vicinity of the project site, Serramonte Boulevard has two travel lanes 

in each direction, and on-street parking is not permitted on either side of the street. Collins 

Avenue is an east-west roadway that extends between Serramonte Boulevard and El Camino 

Real. Collins Avenue has one travel lane in each direction, and on-street parking is generally 

permitted on both sides of the street. 


Roadways providing access to the South San Francisco site include Westborough Boulevard, 

West Orange Avenue, Camaritas Avenue, and Arroyo Drive. Westborough Boulevard is an eastwest 

arterial that extends between Skyline Boulevard and El Camino Real (the roadway 

continues east/northeast as Chestnut Avenue to Hillside Boulevard). In the vicinity of the project 

site, Westborough Boulevard has two travel lanes in each direction, and on-street parking is not 

permitted on either side of the street. Camaritas Avenue is a generally north-south roadway that 

extends between San Felipe Avenue and Westborough Boulevard (the roadway continues south 

as West Orange Avenue). Camaritas Avenue generally has one travel lane in each direction, with 

on-street parking on both sides of the street. However, the section of Camaritas Avenue between 

Arroyo Drive and Westborough Boulevard that is adjacent to the project site has two travel lanes 

in each direction, with on-street parking on the west side of the street. Arroyo Drive extends 

between El Camino Real and Junipero Serra Boulevard. The section of Arroyo Drive east of 

Camaritas Avenue (adjacent to the South San Francisco site) has one travel lane in each direction 

and on-street parking on both sides of the street. West Orange Avenue extends southeast of 

Camaritas Avenue to North Canal Street (and continues northeast as Orange Avenue). In the 

vicinity of the South San Francisco site, West Orange Avenue is two-way with one travel lane in 

each direction between Westborough Boulevard and the South San Francisco Public Library 

(about 650 feet south of Westborough Boulevard). West Orange Drive continues one-way 

southbound to Fairway Drive, and two-way to North Canal Street. On-street parking is generally 

permitted on both sides of West Orange Avenue. Arroyo Drive, Camaritas Avenue, and West 

Orange Avenue are designated bicycle routes. 


Access to the San Bruno North site is provided via San Bruno Avenue West. San Bruno Avenue 

West is an east-west arterial that extends between Skyline Boulevard and Huntington Avenue 

(the roadway continues east of San Bruno Avenue East). In the vicinity of the San Bruno North 

site, San Bruno Avenue West has two travel lanes in each direction, and on-street parking is not 

permitted on either side of the street. 


Roadways providing access to the San Bruno South site include San Bruno Avenue West, Shelter 

Creek Lane, Whitman Way, and Courtland Drive. San Bruno Avenue West is described above. 

Shelter Creek Lane is a north-south connector roadway that extends between San Bruno Avenue 

West and Whitman Way. Shelter Creek Lane has one travel lane in each direction, and on-street 





parking is permitted on both sides of the street. Whitman Way is an east-west roadway that 

extends between Princeton Drive and Shelter Creek Lane (the roadway continues east of Shelter 

Creek Lane as Jenevein Avenue, which is also a designated bicycle route). In the vicinity of the 

project site, Whitman Way has one travel lane in each direction, and on-street parking is 

generally permitted on both sides of the street. Courtland Drive is a local north-south roadway 

that extends between the intersection of Madison Avenue and Piedmont Avenue to the south, 

and Whitman Way to the north. Courtland Drive is between 30 and 35 feet in width, has one 

travel lane in each direction, and has posted speed limits of 25 miles per hour (mph) between 

Whitman Way and the driveway to the San Bruno Chinese Church; and 10 mph between the 

driveway to the San Bruno Chinese Church and the intersection of Madison Avenue and 

Piedmont Avenue. On-street parking is generally permitted on both sides of Courtland Drive 

between Whitman Way and the driveway to the San Bruno Chinese Church, and permitted on 

only one side of the street between the driveway to the San Bruno Chinese Church and the 

intersection of Madison Avenue and Piedmont Avenue. 

Millbrae Site 

Roadways providing access to the Millbrae site include Larkspur Drive, Ridgewood Drive, 

Lomita Avenue, Bertocchi Lane, Capuchino Drive, and Millwood Drive. Larkspur Drive is an 

east-west roadway that extends between I-280 and the Green Hills Country Club. Between I-280 

and Helen Drive, Larkspur Drive is an arterial, serving as a connector to and from I-280. Between 

Helen Drive and the Green Hills Country Club, Larkspur Drive is a local residential street. 

Throughout its length, Larkspur Drive has one travel lane in each direction, with on-street 

parking on both sides of the street. Lomita Avenue, Ridgewood Drive, Bertocchi Lane, and 

Capuchino Drive are local residential streets, with one travel lane in each direction, and on-street 

parking on both sides of the street. Millwood Drive connects Capuchino Drive with El Camino 

Real; it is a local street with one travel lane in each direction, and on-street parking on both sides 

of the street. 


Local access to the common staging area would be via Westborough Boulevard and West Orange 

Avenue, described above for the South San Francisco site, and via and El Camino Real. El 

Camino Real is a two-way roadway with three travel lanes in each direction, and on-street 

parking is not permitted on either side of the street. 

5.6.1.3 Traffic Conditions 

This section describes the traffic volumes in the study area and the operating conditions at the 11 

study intersections. 

Traffic Volumes 

Table 5.6-1 presents the average daily traffic volumes on the regional facilities in the vicinity of 

the study area. The most recent data published by the California Department of Transportation 

(Caltrans) indicate that, in the vicinity of the project sites, the average daily traffic volumes are 

approximately 214,000 to 238,000 vehicles on U.S. 101, and 102,000 to 170,000 vehicles on I-280 





Table 5.6-1 

Daily Traffic Volumes on Regional Facilities 

Facility and Location 

Average Daily 

Traffic Volumes 

Trucks as a 

Percentage of 

Daily Traffic 

I-280 – South San Francisco, Westborough 

Interchange 

I-280 – San Bruno, San Bruno Avenue West 

Interchange 

170,000 0.8% 

114,000 2.4% 

I-280 – San Bruno, Whitman Way Interchange 102,000 NA 

I-280 – Millbrae, Larkspur Drive Interchange 106,000 NA 

U.S. 101 – South San Francisco, Grand Avenue 

Interchange 

U.S. 101 – Produce/S. Airport/Junction I-380 

Interchange 

214,000 NA 

232,000 NA 

U.S. 101 – Millbrae, Millbrae Avenue Interchange 238,000 4.4% 

SR 82 – Colma, Mission Road 19,000 NA 

SR 82 – South San Francisco, Chestnut 42,000 NA 

SR 82 – San Bruno, San Bruno Avenue West 37,000 2.0% 

SR 82 – Millbrae, Millbrae Avenue 24,700 NA 

Sources: Caltrans, 2009; Caltrans, 2010. 

Notes: 

NA =Not Available 

SR = State Route 

U.S. 101 = U.S. Highway 101 

(Caltrans, 2010). As a percentage of total daily traffic volumes, trucks range between 1 and 

2 percent of the daily traffic volumes on I-280, to approximately 4 percent of the daily traffic 

volumes on U.S. 101 (Caltrans, 2009). El Camino Real has average daily traffic volumes of 

between 19,000 and 42,000 vehicles. Trucks represent about 2 percent of the total daily traffic 

volumes on El Camino Real (Caltrans, 2009). 

Table 5.6-2 presents the average daily traffic volumes on local streets in the vicinity of the study 

area. Serramonte Boulevard, Westborough Boulevard, and San Bruno Avenue West are major 

arterials and serve approximately 10,000 to 36,800 vehicles per day. The average daily traffic 

volumes on local streets in the vicinity of the San Bruno South and Millbrae sites are substantially 

lower, and range between 1,200 and 6,100 vehicles per day. 





Table 5.6-2 

Daily Traffic Volumes on Local Roadways 

Roadway 

Project Site 

Average Daily Traffic 

Volumes 

Serramonte Boulevard Colma 15,300 

Westborough Boulevard South San Francisco 36,800 

San Bruno Avenue West San Bruno North and South 9,400 

Courtland Drive San Bruno South 1,050 

Shelter Creek Lane San Bruno South 4,050 

Larkspur Drive Millbrae 6,100 

Lomita Avenue Millbrae 1,200 

Sources: City of South San Francisco, 1999; LCW Consulting, 2011a; San Mateo County, 2012; LCW Consulting, 2012a. 

Intersection Operations 

Intersection Level of Service (LOS) conditions were analyzed for the peak hour of the weekday 

a.m. (7:00 to 9:00 a.m.) and p.m. (4:00 to 6:00 p.m.) peak periods. 1 Counts of peak-period traffic 

turning movements for the study intersections were conducted on April 19, 2011, April 20, 2011, 

and October 12, 2011. The study intersections were evaluated using the 2000 Highway Capacity 

Manual methodology. For signalized intersections, this methodology uses various intersection 

characteristics (e.g., traffic volumes, lane geometry, and signal phasing and timing) to estimate 

the capacity for each lane group approaching the intersection. The LOS is based on average 

control delay experienced by motorists traveling through the intersection. A combined weighted 

average delay and LOS is presented for the intersection. For unsignalized intersections, average 

delay and LOS operating conditions are calculated by approach (e.g., northbound) and 

movement (e.g., northbound left turn), for those movements that are subject to delay. For the 

purposes of this analysis, the operating conditions (i.e., LOS and delay) for unsignalized 

intersections are presented for the worst approach (i.e., the approach with the highest average 

delay per vehicle). Table 5.6-3 presents the LOS descriptions and associated delays for signalized 

and unsignalized intersections. 

Existing intersection operating conditions were evaluated within the study area at selected 

intersections that would be affected by construction-related activities (e.g., either the use of the 

travel lanes for construction activities, or the addition of construction-generated vehicle trips) of 

the proposed project. A total of 11 intersections were analyzed, including one in Colma, one in 

South San Francisco, six in San Bruno, and three in Millbrae (see Figure 5.6-1). Four of the 11 

study intersections are signalized: Intersection #1 (Serramonte Boulevard/Junipero Serra 

1 LOS is a qualitative description of a facility’s performance based on average delay per vehicle, vehicle density, or 

volume-to-capacity ratios. LOS ranges from LOS A, which indicates free flow or excellent conditions with short delays, 

to LOS F, which indicates congested and overloaded conditions with extremely long delays. 





Table 5.6-3 

Level of Service Definitions for Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections 

Control/ 

LOS 

Signalized 

A 

B 

C 

D 

E 

F 

Description of Operations 

Insignificant Delays: No approach phase is fully used, and 

no vehicle waits longer than one red indication. 

Minimal Delays: An occasional approach phase is fully 

used. Drivers begin to feel restricted. 

Acceptable Delays: Major approach phase may become fully 

used. Most drivers feel somewhat restricted. 

Tolerable Delays. Drivers may wait through no more than 

one red indication. Queues may develop but dissipate 

rapidly, without excessive delays. 

Significant Delays: Volumes approach capacity. Vehicles 

may wait through several signal cycles, and long queues 

form upstream. 

Excessive Delays: Represents conditions at capacity, with 

extremely long delays. Queues may block upstream 

intersections. 

Average Control 

Delay (seconds 

per vehicle) 

< 10 

> 10.0 and < 20 

> 20.0 and < 35 

> 35.0 and < 55 

> 55.0 and < 80 

> 80 

Unsignalized 

A No delay for stop-controlled approach. < 10 

B Operations with minor delays. > 10.0 and < 15 

C Operations with moderate delays. > 15.0 and < 25 

D Operations with some delays. > 25.0 and < 35 

E Operations with high delays and long queues. > 35.0 and < 50 

F 

Operations with extreme congestion, with very high delays 

and long queues unacceptable to most drivers. 

> 50 

Source: Transportation Research Board, 2000. 

Notes: 

> = greater than 

< = less than or equal to 

LOS = Level of Service 



Colma 


BONITA AVE 

SR 82 

ALTA LOMA DR 


MISSIO N RD 

GRAND AVE 

MARCIE C 

IR 

OAK AVE 

DALY CT 

CHESTNUT AVE 

2ND LN 

MILLER AVE 

4TH LN 

3RD LN 

BADEN AVE 

COMMERCIALAVE 


GREENLAWN CEMETERY 

COLMA BLVD 

SR 82 

vsa U:\GIS\SFPUC_Peninsula_Pipeline\Projects\EIR\ERO_DEIR\Fig5_6_1_transportation_intersections_new.mxd 1/28/2013 4:42:11 PM 

GELLERT BLVD 

CRESTMOOR DR 

KIN GSTON AVE 

WHITMAN WAY 

ALCOTT 

RD 

I280 

HAMILTON AVE 

TRENTON 

PRINCETON 

LO WELL AVE 



I280 

MADISON 

DR 

DR 

AVE 

HALF MOON LN 


! 3 

! 1 

IMPERIAL WAY 

ROSEWOOD DR 

COURTLAND 

I280 


DR 


COLLINS AVE 

! 2 



Millbrae 


! 6 

HICKORY AVE 

JUNIPER AVE 

HOLLY AVE 

CHESTNUT AVE 

CHERRY 

PEPPER DR HAWTHORNE AVE 

CEDAR AVE 

AVE 

REDWOOD AVE 


COLMA SITE 

CEMETERY 

ARLINGTON DR 

OLIVE CT 

WILLIAMS AVE 

PARK AVE 

MAPLE AVE 

BEECH AVE 

NILES AVE 

DONN ER 

CRYS TAL SPRINGS 

B RADFORD DR 

C ALVERT AVE 

RD 

AN GUS 

HAZEL AVE 

OAKAVE 

ELM AVE 

CYPRESS AVE 

Project Site 

$ 

Study Intersection 

0 0.5 

Miles 

AVE 

AVE 

INDIO DR 

CAMARITAS AVE 

DEL MONTE AVE 

ALTA MESA DR 

ROBIN LN 

I 280 

TERRACE DR 

SYCAMORE DR 

I280 

ARROYO DR 

CHICO CT 


BROOKSIDE LN 

GLENWOOD DR 

CRESTVIEW DR 

RIDGE W O OD DR 

OAKWOOD D R 

ELMWOOD DR 

FERNWOOD DR 

MOSSWOOD LN 

SR 82 

BAYVIEW CT 

LOMITA AVE 

BANBURY LN 


BAYVIEW AVE 

LASSEN ST 

LARKSPUR DR 

SOUTHWOOD DR 

HILL AVE 

BERTOCCHI LN 

EVERGREEN WAY 

SLEEP Y HOL L OW LN 

HAVEN AVE 

RAINIER AVE 

! 

! 11 

4 

! 5 

! 8 ! 10 

! 7 

! 9 

STUDY INTERSECTIONS 

! ! 1 Serramonte Boulevard/Junipero Serra Boulevard 

6 Shelter Creek Lane/Whitman Way 

! ! 2 West Orange Avenue/Westborough Boulevard 

7 Courtland Drive/Whitman Way 

! 3 I-280 northbound ramps/San Bruno Avenue West 

! 8 

! 4 Crestmoor Drive/San Bruno Avenue West/ 


! 9 Helen Drive/Larkspur Drive 

! 5 Shelter Creek Lane/Shelter Creek Condominiums 

Ridgewood Drive/Banbury Lane 

! 10 Driveway 

! 11 

SR 82 

DUVAL DR 

1ST ST 

ORANGE 

STUDY INTERSECTIONS 




FAIRWA Y DR 

GUADALUPE AVE 

HELEN DR 

2ND ST 

AST 

AVE 

JUANITA AVE 

BA R CELONA DR 

BONITA AVE 

AHWAHNEE DR 

Whitman Way/Shelter Creek Condominiums 

Driveway/Eastburn Court 

Santa Margarita Avenue/Capuchino Drive 

BST 

CA PUCHINO DR 

C ST 

P A RK BLVD 

MILLBRAE SITE 

TIOGA DR 

CST 

KENNEDY PL 

FIGURE 5.6-1



Boulevard); Intersection #2 (West Orange Avenue/Westborough Boulevard); Intersection #3 (I-280 

Northbound ramps/San Bruno Avenue West); and Intersection #4 (Crestmoor Drive/San Bruno 

Avenue West/Shelter Creek Lane), and seven are unsignalized: Intersection #5 (Shelter Creek 

Lane/Shelter Creek Condominiums Driveway); Intersection #6 (Shelter Creek Lane/Whitman 

Way); Intersection #7 (Courtland Drive/Whitman Way); Intersection #8 (Whitman Way/Shelter 

Creek Condominiums Driveway/Eastburn Court); Intersection #9 (Helen Drive/Larkspur Drive); 

Intersection #10 (Ridgewood Drive/Banbury Lane); and Intersection #11 (Santa Margarita 

Avenue/Capuchino Drive). Table 5.6-4 presents the existing LOS and average vehicle delay for 

the study intersections. All intersections operate at LOS D or better. 

5.6.1.4 Public Transit 

San Mateo County Transit (SamTrans), operated by the San Mateo County Transit District, 

provides bus service within San Mateo County, as well as between San Mateo County and parts 

of San Francisco and Palo Alto. In addition, the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) system provides 

rail service between the East Bay and San Francisco International Airport, with stations in Colma, 

South San Francisco, San Bruno, and Millbrae. Caltrain provides commuter rail service between 

San Francisco and Gilroy, with stations in South San Francisco, San Bruno, and Millbrae. 

In the vicinity of the Colma site, SamTrans Route 130 and Route 391 run along El Camino Real. In 

the vicinity of the South San Francisco site, SamTrans Route 132 and Route 133 run southbound 

along West Orange Avenue. In the vicinity of the San Bruno North and South sites, SamTrans 

Route 141 runs southbound on Shelter Creek Lane and westbound on San Bruno Avenue West. 

Limited service is also provided via this route to the Peninsula High School via Whitman Way 

and Courtland Drive. In the vicinity of the Millbrae site, SamTrans Route 43 runs in both 

directions along Helen Drive, Mosswood Lane, Ridgewood Drive, and Lomita Avenue. There are 

no SamTrans bus stops adjacent to the five project sites. 

The SamTrans routes serving the study area also connect with one or more BART and Caltrain 

stations. For example, SamTrans Route 130, which serves the Colma site, connects with the 

Colma and South San Francisco BART stations, as well as the South San Francisco Caltrain 

station. Table 5.6-5 summarizes the SamTrans routes serving the project sites, and indicates the 

BART and/or Caltrain stations that are served. 

5.6.1.5 Bicycle Network 

Bikeways are typically classified as Class I, II, or III facilities. 2 Class I bikeways are designated 

bicycle paths with exclusive right-of-way (ROW) for use by bicyclists or pedestrians. Class II 

bikeways are bicycle lanes striped within the paved areas of roadways and established for the 

preferential use of bicycles. Class III bikeways are signed bicycle routes that allow bicycles to 

share streets or sidewalks with vehicles or pedestrians. 

There are no designated bicycle routes or bicycle lanes in the immediate vicinity of the project 

sites in Colma, San Bruno, or Millbrae. In South San Francisco, West Orange Avenue, Del Monte 

2 Bicycle facilities are defined by the State of California in the California Streets and Highway Code, Section 890.4. 





Table 5.6-4 

Intersection Level of Service: Existing Conditions 

a.m. Peak 

Hour 

p.m. Peak 

Hour 

Intersection 

Location 

Delay 1 LOS Delay 1 LOS 

1. Serramonte Boulevard/Junipero 

Serra Boulevard 2 

2. West Orange Avenue/ 

Westborough Boulevard 2 

3. I-280 Northbound ramps/San 

Bruno Avenue West 2 

4. Crestmoor Drive/San Bruno 

Avenue West/Shelter Creek 

Lane 2 

5. Shelter Creek Lane/Shelter Creek 

Condominiums Driveway 3 

6. Shelter Creek Lane/Whitman 

Way 3 

Colma 35.2 D 36.6 D 

South San Francisco 31.2 C 32.7 C 

San Bruno North/South 31.9 C 28.9 C 

San Bruno North/South 39.4 D 33.6 C 

San Bruno South 10.5 (eb) B 10.0 (eb) A 

San Bruno South 13.4 (sb) B 10.6 (sb) B 

7. Courtland Drive/Whitman Way 3 San Bruno South 9.8 (nb) B 9.0 (nb) A 

8. Whitman Way/Shelter Creek 

Condominiums Driveway/ 

Eastburn Court 3 

San Bruno South 10.7 (sb) B 10.3 (sb) B 

9. Helen Drive/Larkspur Drive 4 Millbrae 21.1 (nb) C 11.0 (nb) B 

10. Ridgewood Drive/Banbury 

Lane 3 

11. Santa Margarita Avenue/ 

Capuchino Drive 3 

Millbrae 9.3 (eb) A 8.7 (eb) A 

Millbrae 8.7 (sb) A 8.6 (sb) A 

Source: LCW Consulting (Appendix C). 

Notes: 

1 Delay presented in seconds per vehicle. For unsignalized intersections, delay and LOS presented for worst approach. 

Worst approach indicated by ( ). 

2 Signalized Intersection 

3 Two-way stop-sign–controlled intersection 

4 All-way stop-sign–controlled intersection 

eb = eastbound 

nb = northbound 

sb = southbound 





Table 5.6-5 

Existing Transit Service in the Vicinity of the Project Sites 

Project Site/SamTrans Route 

Colma 



North and 

South 

Millbrae 

BART and Caltrain 

Station Location 

Route 

130 

Route 

391 

Route 

132 

Route 

133 

Route 

141 

Route 

43 

BART Stations 

Colma 

South San Francisco/ 


Area 


and South 

Millbrae 

 

 

 

Caltrain Stations 

South San Francisco/ 


Area 


and South 

Millbrae 

 

 

 

 

Source: SamTrans, 2010. 

Notes: 

BART = Bay Area Rapid Transit 

SamTrans = San Mateo Country Transit 

Avenue/Arroyo Drive, and Chestnut Avenue east of West Orange Drive are designated bicycle 

routes (Class III facilities). A bicycle lane (Class II facility) is provided on Westborough Boulevard 

between West Orange Avenue and Junipero Serra Boulevard. In San Bruno, Jenevein Avenue east 

of Shelter Creek Lane is a designated bicycle route (Class III facility). During the weekday a.m. 

and p.m. peak period, bicycle volumes in the vicinity of the project sites are low. Weekday peakperiod 

bicycle volumes at the study intersections generally ranged between 0 and 3 bicyclists per 

hour. The greatest number of bicyclists was observed at the intersections of Helen Drive/ 

Larkspur Drive and Crestmoor Drive/San Bruno Avenue West/Shelter Creek Lane during the 

a.m. peak period (LCW Consulting, 2011b). 





5.6.1.6 Pedestrian Facilities 

Roadways in the vicinity of the project sites generally include 4-foot-wide sidewalks on both 

sides of the street. However, sidewalks are not provided on Westborough Boulevard at the South 

San Francisco site, west of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) ROW; and on 

Shelter Creek Lane at the San Bruno South site, sidewalks are only provided on the west side of 

the street (adjacent to the residential land uses). Pedestrian volumes in the vicinity of the project 

sites are generally low throughout the day, because the predominant mode of travel in these 

areas is the automobile. 


The section below describes applicable regulations pertaining to transportation within the project 

area. For a list of specific permits required for implementation of the proposed project, see 

Section 3.10, Required Permits. 


There are no applicable federal regulations that address transportation facilities or infrastructure. 

5.6.2.2 State 

Transportation analysis in California is guided by policies and standards set at the State level by 

Caltrans. Caltrans plans and policies related to transportation and circulation are generally 

designed to foster appropriate planning and to accommodate future growth—and the vehicular, 

transit, pedestrian, and bicycle travel demand associated with that growth. 

5.6.2.3 Local 

The local policies of the Town of Colma and the cities of South San Francisco, San Bruno, and 

Millbrae specify that roadways maintain a LOS D on major streets during the peak periods of 

traffic flow, and require the implementation of mitigation measures when project-specific 

impacts would result in a LOS that exceeds the threshold (City of Millbrae, 1998; City of San 

Bruno, 2009; City of South San Francisco, 1999; Town of Colma, 2000). The LOS standards for 

roadways in the San Mateo County and San Francisco County Congestion Management Program 

(CMP) networks vary by roadway segment (C/CAG, 2011); however, these standards do not 

apply to impacts resulting from construction activities associated with the project. The San Mateo 

CMP Traffic Impact Analysis Policy applies to projects involving roadway changes, General Plan 

Updates/Amendments and Specific Area Plans, and land use development projects (C/CAG, 

2011). 3 

3 The Traffic Impact Analysis Policy, which provides uniform procedures to analyze traffic impacts on the CMP network, 

was added to the 2009 San Mateo CMP. 








impacts related to transportation and circulation, but generally considers that implementation of 


 

 

 

 

 

 

Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of 

effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes 

of transportation including mass transit and nonmotorized travel and relevant 

components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, 

highways, freeways, pedestrian paths, bicycle paths, and mass transit; 

Conflict with an applicable CMP, including but not limited to LOS standards, travel 

demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management 

agency for designated roads or highways; 

Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels, 

obstructions to flight, or a change in location, that causes substantial safety risks; 

Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous 

intersections) or incompatible uses; 

Result in inadequate emergency access; or 

Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, 

or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such 

facilities. 


As explained below, the proposed PPSU project would not result in impacts related to the 

following significance criteria; therefore, an impact discussion is not provided for these 

topics. 

PPSU project construction would have no impacts related to the following significance 

criterion: 

 

Conflict with an applicable congestion management program. The LOS standards 

established by San Mateo County are intended to regulate long-term traffic impacts 

resulting from a project, and do not apply to temporary construction projects. Therefore, 

this significance criterion is not applicable to project construction activities, and is only 

discussed below under Impact TR-4 as it relates to operational impacts. 


 

Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of 

effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system. Operations and 





maintenance activities associated with the PPSU project are expected to be similar to 

those occurring under existing conditions, and would result in no change to traffic 

generation or transit demand. Thus, project operations would not result in long-term 

increases in traffic volumes or transit demand that would affect alternative 

transportation modes, nor would it affect bicycle or pedestrian travel. Therefore, this 

significance criterion is discussed below under Impact TR-1 only as it applies to project 


 

 

 

Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses. 

Operations and maintenance activities associated with the PPSU project are expected to 

be similar to those occurring under existing conditions, and would not result in 

changes to the design of transportation facilities or changes in uses. Thus, project 

operations would not result in long-term increases in hazards. Therefore, this 

significance criterion is discussed below under Impact TR-3 only as it applies to project 


Result in inadequate emergency access. Implementation of the PPSU project would not 

permanently change the existing or planned transportation network and would not affect 

emergency vehicle access in the vicinity of the project sites. Therefore, this significance 

criterion is not applicable to the proposed project operations, and is discussed further 

under Impact TR-2 only as it applies to project construction activities. 

Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, 

or pedestrian facilities. Implementation of the PPSU project would not permanently 

change the existing or planned alternative mode transportation network in San Mateo 

County; therefore, it would not conflict with policies, plans, or programs related to 

transit, bicycle, or pedestrian travel. Upon completion of the proposed project, 

operations and maintenance activities are expected to be similar to those occurring 

under existing conditions; they would not result in long-term increases in traffic safety 

hazards or transit demand that would affect alternative transportation modes. 

Therefore, this significance criterion is not applicable to proposed project operations, 

and is discussed further under Impact TR-3 only as it applies to project construction 

activities. 

PPSU project construction and operations would have no impacts related to the following 

significance criterion: 

 

Result in a change in air traffic patterns. Due to the nature and scope of the proposed 

project, implementation of the project does not have the potential to change air traffic 

patterns. In addition, the project would not involve the installation of structures that 

could interfere with air space or result in changes to air traffic patterns. Therefore, this 

significance criterion is not applicable to the proposed project operations, and is not 

discussed further. Impact HZ-4 presents a discussion of potential construction-related 

hazards related to navigable airspace, and compliance with Federal Aviation 

Administration regulations. 

While parking deficits are considered to be a social effect rather than an impact on the physical 

environment, a deficiency in parking has the potential to trigger secondary effects that could 





constitute significant environmental impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act. 

The San Francisco Planning Department recognizes, however, that parking conditions are often 

of interest to the public and decision makers. Therefore, for each project site, a parking analysis is 

presented both for informational purposes regarding supply and demand, and also to evaluate 

whether any project-related changes in parking supply and demand could trigger secondary 

effects. 

This impact analysis evaluates the potential for short-term impacts on roadways due to 

construction-related changes in traffic, as well as long-term impacts associated with operation of 

the proposed project. Project impacts are determined by adding the anticipated project-related 

traffic volumes to the existing intersection volumes presented above in Section 5.6.1.3, Traffic 

Conditions. The San Francisco Planning Department generally considers impacts to be significant 

when project-related traffic at an intersection causes the LOS to deteriorate from LOS D or better 

to LOS E or LOS F, or from LOS E to LOS F. In addition, a project would have a significant effect 

if it would contribute substantially to traffic volumes at intersections already operating at LOS E 

or LOS F. As noted in Section 5.6.2.3, Local, the local policies of the Town of Colma and the cities 

of South San Francisco, San Bruno, and Millbrae specify that roadways maintain LOS D on major 

streets during the peak periods of traffic flow. 

Construction of the proposed project is estimated to require a total of 12 months to complete, and 

project construction would generally occur on weekdays between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. Constructionrelated 

vehicle trips would include construction workers traveling to and from the PPSU sites, 

haul truck trips associated with materials and equipment deliveries, and haul truck trips 

associated with the transport of excavated materials. The number of construction-related vehicles 

traveling to and from the project area would vary on a daily basis depending on the construction 

phase, planned activity, and materials needs. Table 5.6-6 presents the average and maximum 

number of construction truck and construction worker vehicle trips (inbound and outbound) by site 

on a daily basis, and presents the anticipated duration of construction activities. Overall, during the 

peak of construction activities at each site, the number of vehicle trips generated by short-term 

project construction would range from 56 to 276 vehicle trips per day (see Appendix C). Table 5.6-7 

presents the average and maximum number of construction truck and construction worker vehicle 

trips (inbound and outbound) by site during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. 

Construction-related trips to and from the project work area would be distributed throughout 

the day. Construction workers would travel to and from the project site based on a work shift 

that would generally occur on weekdays between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. Weekend work may be 

required on a limited basis, although the nature of such work is not currently known. 

Nighttime construction may be required at the San Bruno North site. Nighttime activities would 

also include limited 24-hour pumping for dewatering of the pipelines at a few locations, as 

described in Chapter 3, Project Description. Trucks delivering equipment and materials to the 

project area from offsite locations, and hauling excavated materials from the project area to 

offsite locations, would generally travel on weekdays between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. Truck 

deliveries and hauling to and from the site would not occur on weekends or during nighttime 

hours, except as required for nighttime construction at the San Bruno North site. 





Project Site/Estimated 

Construction Duration 

Table 5.6-6 

Daily Construction Vehicles by Site 

Daily Construction 

Truck Trips 1 

Daily 

Construction 

Worker Vehicle 

Trips 4 

Total Daily Vehicle Trips 

Average 2 Maximum 3 Average Maximum 

Colma 2 months 22 88 40 62 128 

South San Francisco 3 months 54 160 40 94 200 

San Bruno North 1 month 4 16 40 44 56 

San Bruno South 9 months 42 236 40 82 276 

Millbrae 4.5 months 24 130 40 64 170 

Common Staging Area 12 months 0 0 40 40 40 

Sources: G&E Engineering Systems, Inc., 2012; Roche, 2011. 

Notes: 

1 Construction truck trips are based on the estimate of project materials transport in Table 3-2, and include inbound and 

outbound vehicle trips during the construction phase of the project, when the greatest number of vehicle trips would occur. 

2 Estimated average trips per day are based on the total estimated trips divided by the anticipated duration of 

construction activities at the site. 

3 Estimated maximum trips per day are the maximum trips anticipated for any day during construction activities, 

based on phasing of activities at the site. 

4 Construction worker trips are based on one construction crew with up to 20 workers per crew, arriving in singleoccupant 

vehicles, and include inbound and outbound vehicle trips. 

Table 5.6-7 

AM and PM Peak Hour Construction Vehicles by Site 1 

Project Site/Estimated Construction 

Duration AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour 

Average Hour 

(Trucks) 

Average 

Maximum 

Colma 2 months 32 32 3 11 

South San Francisco 3 months 40 40 7 20 

San Bruno North 1 month 22 22 1 2 

San Bruno South 9 months 50 50 5 30 

Millbrae 4.5 months 36 36 3 16 

Common Staging Area 12 months 20 20 0 0 

Sources: G&E Engineering Systems, Inc., 2012; PPSU project analysis, LCW Consulting. 

Notes: 

1 Construction activities would occur between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. Based on construction trucks arriving and departing 

over an 8-hour period. As a conservative estimate, truck trips are assumed to occur during the a.m. and p.m. peak 

hours. Construction worker trips based on one crew with 20 personnel arriving and departing during the a.m. and 

p.m. peak hours. 






The proposed project's impacts on transportation and circulation and the resulting significance 

determinations are summarized in Table 5.6-8. 

Table 5.6-8 

Summary of Impacts – Transportation and Circulation 


Impacts 

Colma 

South 




Bruno 

North 


Bruno 

South 

Millbrae 

Common 

Staging 

Area 

Impact TR-1: Project construction 

could substantially conflict with an 

applicable plan, ordinance, or policy 

establishing measures of effectiveness 

for the performance of the circulation 

system, taking into account all modes 

of travel. 


would not result in inadequate 

emergency access. 


activities could decrease the safety of 

public roadways for vehicles, 

bicyclists, and pedestrians. 

Impact TR-4: Vehicle trips generated 

during project operation and 

maintenance activities would not 

substantially conflict with an 

applicable congestion management 

program. 

Impact C-TR: Project construction 

could result in a cumulatively 


cumulative traffic increases and 

safety hazards on local and regional 

roads. 






Notes: 


LSM = Less-than-Significant impact with mitigation 


Impact TR-1: Project construction could substantially conflict with an applicable plan, 

ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the 





circulation system, taking into account all modes of travel. (Less than Significant with 

Mitigation) 

The plans, ordinances, and policies of local jurisdictions and county agencies that establish 

measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system are intended to address 

potential long-term and permanent project effects on the circulation system (e.g., roadways, 

sidewalks, and bicycle and transit facilities). Due to the nature of the PPSU project 

(improvements to an existing water supply system), the project would not permanently affect the 

transportation and circulation system; therefore, this analysis assesses potential temporary 

impacts on the overall transportation and circulation system during construction activities, 

including roadways, public transit, bicycle facilities, and pedestrian facilities. 

The PPSU project would not conflict with established plans, ordinances, or policies pertaining to 

the performance of the circulation system because, as described below, most construction 

activities would occur within SFPUC ROW; the project would not permanently change the 

circulation system; the project would be limited in duration; and construction activities would 

not result in a substantial increase in vehicles traveling along local roadways. 

The PPSU project would result in short-term increases in construction-related vehicle trips on area 

roadways. These vehicle trips would include construction workers traveling to and from the five 

project sites and the common staging area; haul truck trips associated with the disposal of excavated 

materials; and material and equipment deliveries. The number of construction workers and 

construction vehicles at each site would vary on a daily basis depending on the type of activity (e.g., 

tree removal, shoring and excavation, pipeline removal, backfilling, or restoration), construction 

phase, and material needs. In addition to the common staging area, each project site would include 

one or more construction staging areas that would be located within the SFPUC ROW or on nearby 

private property, and would be used for parking and for equipment and materials storage. 

The addition of construction vehicle traffic to the current roadway volumes could result in 

increased congestion and delay for vehicles. The presence of construction truck traffic would 

temporarily reduce roadway capacities due to the slower travel speeds and larger turning radii of 

trucks. The reduction in roadway capacity through temporary lane closures could further 

increase congestion and delays for vehicles using the roadway. The actual impact of construction 

vehicle traffic on the access routes would depend on the number and type of construction-related 

vehicles, the number of travel lanes on the roadways used as haul routes, existing traffic volumes 

on these roadways, the terrain, and other factors. Drivers would experience intermittent delays, 

particularly if they were traveling behind a construction truck. The impacts of construction traffic 

would be most noticeable in the immediate vicinity of the project sites and less noticeable farther 

away and on regional roadways. 

The haul routes for offsite disposal of excavated materials and delivery of concrete and other 

materials would entail a combination of regional highways (U.S. 101, I-280), major arterials (e.g., 

Westborough Boulevard and Serramonte Boulevard), local arterials, and residential streets, 

depending on the geographic location of the construction activity. Construction debris would be 

removed and trucked to the Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill in Half Moon Bay for recycling or 

disposal. 

Traffic impacts for a.m. and p.m. peak hour conditions were analyzed for the worst-case 

scenario with the highest project-generated trips. As a conservative assumption, construction 





workers were assumed to arrive and depart during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Therefore, 

half of the daily construction worker trips were assumed to be inbound trips during the a.m. 

peak hour, and the remaining half were assumed to be outbound trips during the p.m. peak 

hour. Construction workers were assumed to originate equally from north and south of the 

project sites. The a.m. and p.m. peak hour construction truck trips in Table 5.6-7 were 

estimated by distributing the daily construction truck trips in Table 5.6-6 evenly throughout an 

8-hour work day that would occur sometime between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. It was assumed that 

80 percent of truck trips would originate and depart to areas south of the project sites (i.e., 

destined to and from the Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill), and 20 percent would originate and 

depart to areas north of the project sites. 

Table 5.6-9 presents the results of the “existing plus project” analysis at the 11 study intersections 

for the a.m. and p.m. peak hour conditions. As shown in Table 5.6-9, the results of the quantitative 

LOS analysis indicates that the addition of the construction-generated vehicle trips would not 

substantially affect existing traffic conditions, and all intersections would continue to operate at 

acceptable levels (i.e., at LOS D or better). Therefore, the impact from short-term increases in traffic 

volumes during construction at all PPSU project sites would be less than significant. 

Colma Site 

Impacts on Roadways 

Construction access routes for the Colma site are presented on Figure 3-2. Construction traffic 

would result in short-term increases in traffic volumes on Serramonte Boulevard and Collins 

Avenue for an estimated construction period of 2 months. Project construction activities at this 

site would generate an average of 62 and a maximum of 128 vehicle trips (inbound and 

outbound) on a daily basis. During the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, there would be a maximum of 

12 construction truck trips accessing the project site, and 20 construction worker vehicle trips. The 

vehicle trips would be distributed between Serramonte Boulevard and Collins Avenue. As 

indicated in Table 5.6-9, the addition of the construction-generated vehicle trips would not 

substantially affect a.m. or p.m. peak hour LOS at the study intersection of Serramonte 

Boulevard/Junipero Serra Boulevard (Intersection #1), and the intersection would continue to 

operate at LOS D conditions. Therefore, the impact from short-term increases in traffic volumes 

during construction at the Colma site would be less than significant. 

Impacts on Public Transit 

Because there are no public transit routes on Serramonte Boulevard or Collins Avenue, project 

construction activities and vehicles would not affect public transit operations. Construction 

vehicle access to and from I-280 would be via Serramonte Boulevard and Collins Avenue west of 

El Camino Real, and thus would not affect SamTrans Routes 130 and 391 service along El Camino 

Real. Therefore, construction-related impacts on public transit would be less than significant. 

Impacts on Bicycle Facilities 

There are no designated bicycle routes or bicycle lanes in the immediate vicinity of the project site 

in Colma; bicyclists currently share the travel lanes with vehicles. As noted above, construction 





Colma Site 

Table 5.6-9 

Intersection Level of Service: Existing and Existing plus Project Conditions 

Intersection 

Existing 

Existing plus Project 

a.m. Peak p.m. Peak a.m. Peak p.m. Peak 

Delay 1/ LOS Delay 1/ LOS Delay 1/ LOS Delay 1/ LOS 

1. Serramonte Boulevard/Junipero Serra Boulevard 2 35.2/D 36.6/D 35.3/D 36.7/D 


2. West Orange Avenue/Westborough Boulevard 2 31.2/C 32.7/C 31.2/C 33.7/C 


3. I-280 Northbound ramps/San Bruno Avenue West 2 31.9/C 28.9/C 32.4/C 29.4/C 

3. I-280 Northbound ramps/San Bruno Avenue 

West - during 10-day ramp lane closure 

3. I-280 Northbound ramps/San Bruno Avenue West 

– during 2-week eastbound San Bruno Avenue 

West lane closure 

3. I-280 Northbound ramps/San Bruno Avenue 

West - during 10-day ramp lane closure, plus 2-week 

eastbound San Bruno Avenue West lane closure 


4. Crestmoor Drive/San Bruno Ave West/Shelter 

Creek Lane 2,5 

5. Shelter Creek Lane/Shelter Creek Condominiums 

Driveway 3 

31.9/C 28.9/C 40.1/D 38.9/D 

31.9/C 28.9/C 33.8/C 30.7/C 

31.9/C 28.9/C 55.7/E 41.0/D 

39.4/D 33.6/C 40.5/D 34.6/C 

10.5 (eb)/B 10.0 (eb)/A 10.8 (eb)/B 10.3 (eb)/B 

6. Shelter Creek Lane/Whitman Way 3 13.4 (sb)/B 10.6 (sb)/B 13.8 (sb)/B 11.1 (sb)/B 

7. Courtland Drive/Whitman Way 3 9.8 (nb)/B 9.0 (nb)/A 10.0 (nb)/B 9.2 (nb)/A 

8. Whitman Way/Shelter Creek Condominiums 

Driveway/Eastburn Court 3 

Millbrae Site 

10.7 (sb)/B 10.3 (sb)/B 11.4 (sb)/B 10.9 (sb)/B 

9. Helen Drive/Larkspur Drive 4 21.1 (nb)/C 11.0 (nb)/B 22.6 (nb)/C 11.3 (nb)/B 

10. Ridgewood Drive/Banbury Lane 3 9.3 (eb)/A 8.7 (eb)/A 9.4 (eb)/A 8.7 (eb)/A 

11. Santa Margarita Avenue/Capuchino Drive 3 8.7 (sb)/A 8.6 (sb)/A 8.8 (sb)/A 8.7 (sb)/A 

Source: LCW Consulting (Appendix C). 

Notes: 

shading indicates where the LOS would change. 

1 Delay presented in seconds per vehicle. For unsignalized intersections, delay and LOS presented for worst approach. 

Worst approach indicated by ( ). 

2 Signalized Intersection 

3 Two-way stop-sign–controlled intersection 

4 All-way stop-sign–controlled intersection 

5 Construction vehicle trips from both San Bruno North and San Bruno South sites travel through these intersection. 

6 For up to 10 days of the 1-month construction period at the San Bruno North site, the right-turn lane on the I-280 

Northbound off-ramp would need to be closed. 

eb = eastbound 

nb = northbound 

sb = southbound 





activities would not result in any travel lane closures on Serramonte Boulevard or Collins 

Avenue, and bicycle travel would be maintained throughout the construction period. Because 

bicycle travel would be maintained, and because the number of construction vehicles generated 

on an hourly basis would not be substantial (about 32 vehicles during the a.m. and p.m. peak 

hours when construction workers would be commuting to and from the project area, and 

between 3 and 11 vehicles during the nonpeak hours), project-related impacts on bicycle travel in 

the vicinity of the Colma site would be less than significant. Potential impacts related to bicycle 

safety are addressed below under Impact TR-3. 

Impacts on Pedestrian Travel 

Pedestrian volumes on Serramonte Boulevard and Collins Avenue are low throughout the day. 

Construction activities would not affect sidewalks adjacent to the project site; vehicular access to 

the project site would be via existing driveways. Therefore, construction traffic would not 

substantially affect pedestrian travel in the vicinity of the project site, and construction-related 

impacts on pedestrian travel would be less than significant. Potential impacts related to 

pedestrian safety are addressed below under Impact TR-3. 

Parking Information 

The construction worker parking demand per site is estimated to be 20 vehicles per day. The 

proposed staging areas serving the Colma site would provide sufficient capacity to accommodate 

the anticipated parking demand for construction worker vehicles. 

Construction activities or staging at the Colma site would not occupy on-street parking lanes, and 

therefore would not result in displacement of on-street parking in the immediate vicinity of the 

project site in Coma. 

Construction staging at the Colma site would occur within a portion of the Kohl’s Department 

Store site, and would displace about 40 parking spaces during the estimated 2-month 

construction period; however, these parking spaces are not used for customer parking (Fletcher, 

2012). The staging area would be designed so as not to impede access to or circulation around the 

rear of the store, which is used primarily for merchandise deliveries and trash collection. Because 

the area that would be designated for construction staging is not used for customer parking, the 

temporary removal of the 40 parking spaces would not substantially affect the overall use of the 

Kohl’s parking lot. See Section 5.2, Land Use and Land Use Planning, for a further discussion of 

parking access for existing land uses. 



Construction access routes for the South San Francisco site are presented on Figure 3-3. 

Construction traffic would result in short-term increases in traffic volumes on Westborough 

Boulevard, Camaritas Avenue, and West Orange Avenue for an estimated construction period of 

3 months. Project construction activities at this site would generate an average of 94 and a 

maximum of 200 vehicle trips (inbound and outbound) on a daily basis. During the a.m. and p.m. 

peak hours, there would be a maximum of 20 construction truck trips accessing the project site, 

and 20 construction worker vehicle trips. As indicated in Table 5.6-9, the addition of the 





construction-generated vehicle trips would not substantially affect a.m. or p.m. peak hour LOS at 

the study intersection of West Orange Avenue/Westborough Boulevard (Intersection #2), and the 

intersection would continue to operate at LOS C conditions. Therefore, the impact from shortterm 

increases in traffic volumes during construction at the South San Francisco site would be 

less than significant. 

At the South San Francisco site, pipeline replacement would occur within the SFPUC ROW, and 

would include a segment that extends under Westborough Boulevard. Because jack-and-bore 

techniques would be used to jack a steel casing under Westborough Boulevard, into which a new 

pipe would be installed, construction activities would not impact any travel lanes on 

Westborough Boulevard. Jacking pits would be excavated on either end of the segment, as shown 

on Figure 3-3, and would also not impact travel lanes on Westborough Boulevard. Therefore, the 

impact on traffic from construction activities under Westborough Boulevard at the South San 

Francisco site would be less than significant. 


In the vicinity of the South San Francisco site, SamTrans Routes 132 and 133 run southbound 

along West Orange Avenue, and the closest bus stop is located adjacent to the West Orange 

Library, about 600 feet south of Westborough Boulevard. It is not anticipated that construction 

vehicle access to the site from West Orange Avenue would affect SamTrans bus service. 

Therefore, construction-related impacts on public transit would be less than significant. 


In South San Francisco, West Orange Avenue, Del Monte Avenue/Arroyo Drive, and Chestnut 

Avenue east of West Orange Drive are designated bicycle routes (Class III facilities). A bicycle 

lane (Class II facility) is provided on Westborough Boulevard between West Orange Avenue and 

Junipero Serra Boulevard. As noted above, construction activities would not result in any travel 

lane closures on access routes to the South San Francisco site, and bicycle travel would be 

maintained throughout the construction period. Because bicycle travel would be maintained, and 

because the number of construction vehicles generated on an hourly basis would not be 

substantial (about 40 vehicles during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours when construction workers 

would be commuting to and from the project area, and between 7 and 20 vehicles during the 

nonpeak hours), project-related impacts on bicycle travel in the vicinity of the South San 

Francisco site would be less than significant. Potential impacts related to bicycle safety are 

addressed below under Impact TR-3. 


Pedestrian volumes on streets adjacent to the South San Francisco site are generally low 

throughout the day, with higher volumes on Camaritas Avenue and West Orange Avenue than 

on Westborough Boulevard. Sidewalks are not provided on Westborough Boulevard, west of the 

SFPUC ROW. Construction activities would not affect sidewalks adjacent to the project site 

because vehicular access to the project site (including nearby staging area off of Camaritas 

Avenue) would generally be via existing driveways. However, a new curb cut would be 

provided to the SFPUC ROW on the south side of Arroyo Drive and on the north side of West 

Orange Avenue. While pedestrian volumes on streets adjacent to the site are low, pedestrians 





were observed walking between the South San Francisco Public Library, about 450 feet east of the 

project site on West Orange Avenue, and the commercial area along Camaritas Avenue. At the 

new driveways to the SFPUC ROW (project site) at Arroyo Drive and West Orange Avenue, the 

sidewalk would remain open throughout the construction period; therefore, pedestrian access 

would be maintained. Overall, construction traffic would not substantially affect pedestrian 

travel in the vicinity of the project site, and construction-related impacts on pedestrian travel 

would be less than significant. Potential impacts related to pedestrian safety are addressed 

below under Impact TR-3. 


The construction worker parking demand at the South San Francisco site is estimated to be 20 

vehicles per day. The onsite staging area and the common staging area in South San Francisco 

(which would involve carpooling between the common staging area and the South San Francisco 

site) would provide sufficient capacity to accommodate the anticipated parking demand for 

construction worker vehicles. It is not anticipated that construction workers would park on 

streets in the vicinity of the South San Francisco site. 

Construction activities or staging at the South San Francisco site would not occupy on-street 

parking lanes, and therefore would not result in displacement of on-street parking in the 

immediate vicinity of the project site in South San Francisco. 



Construction access routes for the San Bruno North site are presented on Figure 3-4. Construction 

traffic would result in short-term increases in traffic volumes on San Bruno Avenue West for an 

estimated construction period of 1 month, and construction activities may occur during nighttime 

hours. Project construction activities at this site would generate an average of 44 and a maximum 

of 56 vehicle trips (inbound and outbound) on a daily basis. During the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, 

there would be a maximum of two construction truck trips accessing the project site, and 20 

construction worker vehicle trips (the intersection impact analysis assumed that construction 

workers would drive to the site, but because a staging area would not be provided on site, and 

on-street parking is not permitted on San Bruno Avenue West, it is anticipated that construction 

workers would park at the common staging area, and carpool to the site in construction vehicles). 

As indicated in Table 5.6-9, the addition of the construction-generated vehicle trips would not 

substantially affect a.m. or p.m. peak hour LOS at the study intersection of I-280 Northbound 

ramps/San Bruno Avenue West (Intersection #3), and the intersection would continue to operate 

at LOS C conditions. 4 Therefore, the impact from short-term increases in traffic volumes during 

construction at the San Bruno North site would be less than significant. 

At the San Bruno North site, the right-turn lane on the I-280 northbound off-ramp would need to 

be closed for a period of up to 10 days. Right turns would be made from the adjacent shared 

4 The peak hour traffic analysis at the intersection of I-280 Northbound ramps/San Bruno Avenue West includes 

construction vehicle trips from both San Bruno North and San Bruno South sites. 





right-through-left lane (the left-turn only lane would not be affected). Throughout the 1-month 

construction period at this site, a flagger would be positioned at the entrance into the site. The 

construction contractor would obtain an encroachment permit from Caltrans for work within the 

State right-of-way, and would comply with Caltrans’ traffic control requirements, as described in 

Section 3.10, Required Permits. The temporary closure of the right-turn lane would not 

substantially affect intersection operations. The intersection currently operates at LOS C during 

the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, and as noted above, would continue to operate at LOS C with the 

addition of construction vehicle trips generated by the San Bruno North and San Bruno South 

sites. As indicated in Table 5.6-9, with the temporary closure of the right-turn-only lane, this 

intersection (Intersection #3) would operate at LOS D during the a.m. and p.m. peak hour for the 

10-day period when the right-turn lane would be closed, which is considered an acceptable LOS 

per San Francisco Planning Department and City of San Bruno traffic policy. 

In addition, at the San Bruno North site, the project would extend into a portion of the right-hand 

eastbound lane of San Bruno Avenue west, requiring closure of the lane for up to 2 weeks during 

construction. The temporary closure of the eastbound lane adjacent to the project site would not 

substantially affect intersection operations, and with the temporary closure of one of the two 

eastbound lanes on San Bruno Avenue West adjacent to the project site, the intersection 

(Intersection #3) would continue to operate at LOS C during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours with 

the addition of the construction vehicle trips generated by the San Bruno North and San Bruno 

South sites. 

The temporary closures of the right-turn lane of the I-280 off-ramp and the eastbound San Bruno 

Avenue West lane adjacent to the project site may occur simultaneously. As indicated in 

Table 5.6.9, with the closure of both lanes, the intersection of I-280 Northbound ramps/San Bruno 

Avenue West (Intersection #3) would operate at LOS E during the a.m. peak hour, which would 

not be an acceptable LOS per San Francisco Planning Department or City of San Bruno traffic 

policy; during the p.m. peak hour it would operate at LOS C, which would be considered an 

acceptable LOS. Therefore, the LOS E condition at the intersection of I-280 Northbound ramps/ 

San Bruno Avenue West (Intersection #3) during the a.m. peak period is considered to be a 

significant impact. However, impacts related to the lane closures would be reduced to a lessthan-significant 

level with implementation of Mitigation Measure M-TR-1: Maintain Traffic 

Flow on San Bruno Avenue West During the A.M. Peak Hour, which would allow the LOS at 

the intersection to be maintained at LOS D. This measure would require that the SFPUC 

contractor maintain the eastbound traffic flow through the intersection of I-280 Northbound 

ramps/San Bruno Avenue West by plating over the access pit that extends into the eastbound 

lane of San Bruno Avenue West during the a.m. peak period. Therefore, this impact would be 

less than significant with mitigation. 

Mitigation Measure M-TR-1: Maintain Traffic Flow on San Bruno Avenue West 

During the A.M. Peak Hour 

The SFPUC or its contractor(s) shall maintain eastbound traffic flow on San Bruno 

Avenue West during the a.m. peak period (generally, between 7 and 9 a.m.) if the 

temporary closure of the right-turn lane of the I-280 off-ramp and the eastbound San 

Bruno Avenue West lane adjacent to the project site occur simultaneously. Eastbound 

traffic flow would be maintained on San Bruno Avenue West during the 2-week period 

when a portion of the right-hand eastbound lane of San Bruno Avenue would be 





required for construction activities by plating over the access pit. The SFPUC or its 

contractor(s) shall coordinate with the City of San Bruno and Caltrans, and the plan for 

maintaining access shall conform to the State’s Manual of Traffic Controls for 

Construction and Maintenance Work Areas (Caltrans, 2006). 


In the vicinity of the San Bruno North site, SamTrans Route 141 runs westbound on San Bruno 

Avenue West (i.e., within the travel lanes across the street from the project site). It is not 

anticipated that construction vehicle access to the site from eastbound San Bruno Avenue West 

would affect SamTrans bus service. Therefore, construction-related impacts on public transit 

would be less than significant. 


There are no designated bicycle routes or bicycle lanes in the immediate vicinity of the San Bruno 

North site; bicyclists currently share the travel lanes with vehicles. As noted above, construction 

activities would not result in any travel lane closures on San Bruno Avenue West, and bicycle 

travel would be maintained throughout the construction period. Because bicycle travel would be 

maintained, and because the number of construction vehicles generated on an hourly basis 

would not be substantial (about 22 vehicles during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours when 

construction workers would be commuting to and from the project area, and between one and 

two vehicles during the nonpeak hours), project-related impacts on bicycle travel in the vicinity 

of the San Bruno North site would be less than significant. Potential impacts related to bicycle 

safety are addressed below under Impact TR-3. 


Pedestrian volumes on San Bruno Avenue West are generally low throughout the day. Sidewalks 

are not provided on San Bruno Avenue West to the west of project site (i.e., under the I-280 

freeway overpass). Construction activities would not affect sidewalks adjacent to the project site. 

Vehicular access to the project site would be from a new access driveway on the I-280 

northbound off-ramp, on which pedestrians are not permitted; and on San Bruno Avenue West, 

pedestrian volumes are low due to the break in sidewalks under the I-280 freeway overpass. 

Therefore, construction traffic would not substantially affect pedestrian travel in the vicinity of 

the project site, and construction-related impacts on pedestrian travel would be less than 

significant. Potential impacts related to pedestrian safety are addressed below under 

Impact TR-3. 


The construction worker parking demand associated with the San Bruno North site is estimated 

to be 20 vehicles per day. Construction workers could park at the common staging area in South 

San Francisco and carpool between the common staging area and San Bruno North site; park 

within the staging area at the San Bruno North site; or park on-street (up to 10 vehicles) in the 

vicinity of the San Bruno North site. As indicated in Section 5.6.1.2, in the vicinity of the San 

Bruno North site, on-street parking is not permitted on either side of San Bruno Avenue West; up 

to 10 construction worker vehicles could park on residential streets south of San Bruno Avenue 





West, where on-street parking is permitted (e.g., Cherry Avenue, Hickory Avenue, and 

Cedarwood Court). 

Pipeline rehabilitation at the San Bruno North site would not occupy on-street parking lanes, and 


San Bruno North project site. 


Impacts on Roadways from Construction Traffic 

Construction access routes for the San Bruno South site are presented on Figure 3-5. Construction 

traffic would result in short-term increases in traffic volumes on a number of roadways in the 

vicinity of the San Bruno South site for an estimated construction period of 9 months. Primary 

access roadways that would experience short-term traffic increases would include Shelter Creek 

Lane, Whitman Way, and Courtland Drive. Project construction activities at the San Bruno South 

site would generate an average of 82 and a maximum of 276 vehicle trips (inbound and 

outbound) on a daily basis, as shown in Table 5.6-6. During the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, there 

would be a maximum of 30 construction truck trips accessing the project site, and 20 construction 

worker vehicle trips. 

The impact of the increase in peak hour traffic volumes was analyzed for five study intersections: 

Crestmoor Drive/San Bruno Avenue West/Shelter Creek Lane (Intersection #4), Shelter Creek 

Lane/Shelter Creek Condominiums Driveway (Intersection #5), Shelter Creek Lane/Whitman 

Way (Intersection #6), Courtland Drive/Whitman Way (Intersection #7) and Whitman Way/ 

Shelter Creek Condominiums Driveway/Eastburn Court (Intersection #8). As indicated in 

Table 5.6-9, the addition of the construction-generated vehicle trips would not substantially affect 

a.m. or p.m. peak hour LOS at the study intersections. Intersection LOS would remain the same 

as under existing conditions, with the exception of the intersection of Shelter Creek Lane/Shelter 

Creek Condominiums Driveway (Intersection #5) during the a.m. peak hour. 5 During the a.m. 

peak hour, with the addition of the construction-generated vehicle trips, the eastbound stopsign—controlled 

approach at the intersection of Shelter Creek Lane/Shelter Creek Condominiums 

Driveway (Intersection #5) would change from LOS A to LOS B, which is considered acceptable. 

As noted in Table 5.6-9, the intersection of Courtland Drive/Whitman Way (Intersection #7) 

would continue to operate at LOS B conditions during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hour with the 

addition of the San Bruno South construction vehicles. Traffic volumes on Courtland Drive are 

about 1,050 vehicles per day, with about 25 percent of daily traffic occurring during the a.m. and 

p.m. peak hours. Traffic volumes on the segment of Courtland Drive between Rosewood Drive 

and Whitman Way are somewhat higher, because traffic destined to and from the residences on 

Rosewood Drive use Courtland Drive to access Whitman Way. 

The addition of San Bruno South construction vehicles to Courtland Drive would be 

accommodated within the travel lane capacity without substantial delays. However, in general, 

5 The peak hour traffic analysis at the intersection of I-280 Northbound ramps/San Bruno Avenue West includes 

construction vehicle trips from both San Bruno North and San Bruno South sites. 





the presence of construction truck traffic within the traffic flow would temporarily reduce 

roadway capacities due to the slower travel speeds (e.g., particularly in the southbound uphill 

direction on Courtland Drive). Drivers on Courtland Drive would experience intermittent delays, 

particularly if they were traveling behind a construction truck. The posted speed limit on 

Courtland Drive is 25 mph between Whitman Way and the driveway to the San Bruno Chinese 

Church, and 10 mph between the driveway to the San Bruno Chinese Church and the intersection 

of Madison Avenue and Piedmont Avenue (these roadways are shown on Figure 3-1 in 

Chapter 3, Project Description). 

Vehicular access to the site via the driveway to the Shelter Creek Condominiums at Shelter Creek 

Lane would be maintained throughout the construction period involving replacement of the 

northern segment of the pipelines at the Shelter Creek Condominiums (estimated to be about 

2 months per pipeline, or 4 months total). 

Traffic volume counts conducted in April 2011 indicate that there are about 91 vehicles (18 

inbound and 73 outbound) using the driveway during the a.m. peak hour, and 87 vehicles (53 

inbound and 34 outbound) during the p.m. peak hour. During peak pipeline replacement 

construction activities, it is estimated that there would be about six trucks (three inbound and 

three outbound) per hour accessing the work area within the Shelter Creek Condominiums site 

via Shelter Creek Lane. As indicated in Table 5.6-9, the addition of the construction vehicles to the 

intersection volumes would not substantially affect the intersection LOS conditions, the 

eastbound approach would operate at LOS B conditions during both the a.m. and p.m. peak 

hours; therefore, traffic impacts at this intersection would be less than significant. 

Throughout the construction period for replacement of the northern segment of the pipelines at 

the Shelter Creek Condominiums, vehicular access to the Garage 4, Lot B and Lot C via the 

driveway on Shelter Creek Lane would be prohibited during construction hours. Access to and 

from these parking areas would be maintained via a driveway on Whitman Way east of 

Courtland Drive (Intersection #8), although residents arriving or departing during construction 

hours would experience slightly increased travel times. The addition of the construction vehicles 

and rerouted vehicles accessing Garage 4, Lot B, and Lot C trips to the existing intersection 

volumes at Whitman Way/Shelter Creek Condominiums Driveway/Eastburn Drive (Intersection 

#8) would not substantially affect the intersection LOS conditions. As indicated in Table 5.6-9, the 

southbound approach of the intersection of Whitman Way/Shelter Creek Condominiums 

Driveway/Eastburn Drive would continue to operate at LOS B conditions during both the a.m. 

and p.m. peak hours; therefore, traffic impacts at this intersection would be less than significant. 

Overall, because the addition of construction vehicles would not substantially affect the peakhour 

intersection operations, and because all study intersections would continue to operate at 

LOS C or better, the traffic impact from short-term increases in traffic volumes during 

construction at the San Bruno South site at the study intersections would be less than significant. 

Impacts on Roadways from Construction Activities 

At the San Bruno South site, open trench construction would be used to replace the existing 

pipeline, including the segment of pipe across Whitman Way (between the Shelter Creek 

Condominiums and the Park Plaza Apartments). Whitman Way is a two-lane roadway with onstreet 

parking on both sides of the street. Pipeline replacement across Whitman Way would 





require temporary closure of one travel lane at a time as construction is conducted across the 

roadway, necessitating alternate one-way traffic operations for about 180 feet. In addition, larger 

trucks and equipment maneuvering may constrain traffic operations on Whitman Way, and it 

may be necessary to periodically stop traffic in both directions on Whitman Way for a few 

minutes at a time. Construction would also occur across the parking lanes and sidewalks. 

Pipeline replacement across Whitman Way is projected to occur over a period of up to 

21 calendar days per pipeline. Lane closures would result in additional vehicle delay when 

alternate one-way traffic operations are required, and some drivers might shift to other, 

potentially less convenient routes to access their destination. Vehicles would be delayed in the 

vicinity of the construction zone. These impacts would typically occur only during the day; the 

contractor would use steel plates to restore vehicle access at the end of each workday. 

Traffic volumes on Whitman Way are highest during the morning and evening commute periods, 

and lower throughout the day. On Whitman Way, east of Courtland Drive, there are 

approximately 240 vehicles per hour traveling eastbound, and about 100 vehicles per hour 

traveling westbound during the a.m. peak hour. During the p.m. peak hour there are about 120 

vehicles per hour traveling eastbound, and 190 vehicles per hour traveling westbound on the 

section of Whitman Way east of Courtland Drive. These volumes would be accommodated with 

alternate one-way operations, although some drivers may choose to use other routes to access 

their destination. As described above, during replacement of the pipelines at the Shelter Creek 

Condominiums, residents accessing Garage 4, Lot B and Lot C via the driveway on Shelter Creek 

Lane during construction hours would be routed to these parking areas via a driveway on 

Whitman Way. These drivers would also be delayed during alternate one-way traffic operations 

on Whitman Way, and some drivers might shift to other routes to access their destination. 

Both local residential streets and collector streets have available capacity to accommodate the low 

volume of potential diversion. As noted above, the total volume in both directions on Whitman 

Way is about 340 vehicles per hour during the a.m. peak hour, and 310 vehicles per hour during 

the p.m. peak hour, and only a small portion would be expected to divert if Whitman Way is 

closed during the peak hours. Traffic volumes on Whitman Way during off-peak hours are lower, 

and therefore off-peak diversions, if any, would also be less. Eastbound drivers on Whitman Way 

may divert to Madison Avenue and Princeton Drive to San Bruno Avenue West. Westbound 

drivers on Whitman Way/Jenevein Avenue may shift to Shelter Creek Lane to San Bruno Avenue 

West. As noted above, the length of detour would vary, depending on the actual origin and 

destination of the driver. There is ample capacity on surrounding streets to accommodate drivers 

who may choose to detour. Due to the limited length and duration of the alternate one-way 

operations, impacts of alternate one-way operations would be less than significant. 

Although traffic impacts at intersections and along roadway segments at the San Bruno South site 

would be less than significant, Mitigation Measure M-TR-3: Traffic Control Plan includes 

measures that would manage traffic flow during construction activities, and alert drivers to 

upcoming construction activities. 


In the vicinity of the San Bruno South site, SamTrans Route 141 runs southbound on Shelter 

Creek Lane, and eastbound on Whitman Way and Jenevein Avenue (east of Shelter Creek Lane). 

Limited service is also provided by this route to the Peninsula High School via Whitman Way 





and Courtland Drive. On school days there is one bus trip in the morning and one bus trip in the 

afternoon. As noted above, pipeline replacement across Whitman Way would require temporary 

lane closures with alternate one-way traffic operations on the section of Whitman Way west of 

Shelter Creek Lane. Therefore, only the limited service to the Peninsula High School would be 

affected by construction across Whitman Way. SamTrans buses destined to the Peninsula High 

School may be slightly delayed as they travel through the construction zone for up to 21 calendar 

days per pipeline. It is not anticipated that construction vehicle access to the site would affect 

SamTrans bus service on Shelter Creek Lane or Whitman Way/Jenevein Avenue. Therefore, 

construction-related impacts on public transit would be less than significant. 


In the vicinity of the San Bruno South site, Jenevein Avenue east of Shelter Creek Lane is a 

designated bicycle route (Class III facility—bicyclists currently share the travel lanes with 

vehicles). As noted above, construction activities would not result in any travel lane closures, 

with the exception of Whitman Way when the pipeline that crosses Whitman Way is replaced. 

During the temporary travel lane closures (up to 21 days per pipeline) bicycle travel would be 

accommodated within the alternate one-way traffic operations, and would continue to share the 

travel lane with vehicles. Because bicycle travel would be maintained throughout the 

construction period, and because the number of construction vehicles generated on an hourly 

basis would not be substantial (about 50 vehicles during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours when 

construction workers would be commuting to and from the project area, and between 5 and 30 

vehicles during the nonpeak hours), project-related impacts on bicycle travel in the vicinity of the 

San Bruno South site would be less than significant. Potential impacts related to bicycle safety 

are addressed below under Impact TR-3. 


On weekdays, pedestrian volumes are generally low in the vicinity of the San Bruno South site, 

with the exception of Courtland Drive, which provides access to the Peninsula High School. 

Because the San Bruno Site staging and parking areas would be located off of Courtland Drive, 

traffic volume increases associated with project construction activities would be greatest on this 

street. Construction activities would not affect sidewalks adjacent to the project site, with the 

exception of Whitman Way during pipeline replacement in the street (up to 21 calendar days per 

pipeline). During this time, pedestrians would be instructed to use the sidewalk on the other side 

of the street. Therefore, temporary sidewalk closures on Whitman Way and construction traffic 

would not substantially affect pedestrian travel in the vicinity of the project site, and 

construction-related impacts on pedestrian travel would be less than significant. Potential 

impacts related to pedestrian safety are addressed below under Impact TR-3. 


The construction worker parking demand at the San Bruno South site is estimated to be 20 

vehicles per day. The proposed staging areas serving the San Bruno South site would provide 

sufficient capacity to accommodate the anticipated parking demand for construction worker 

vehicles. 





As indicated on Figure 3-5, the San Bruno South site includes three staging areas along Courtland 

Drive that could affect off-street parking: a 15-space parking lot at the San Bruno Chinese Church; 

a portion of the Peninsula High School parking lot that is currently fenced off and used for school 

storage; and an unpaved area on the east side of Courtland Drive adjacent to the San Bruno 

Chinese Church (within the SFPUC ROW). In addition, the construction zone at the Shelter Creek 

Condominiums and along Whitman Way would temporarily affect off-street and on-street 

parking, respectively. The effects of using these parking areas for staging and construction is 

analyzed below to determine whether the use of these areas would affect neighborhood parking 

conditions. 

 

Shelter Creek Condominiums. North of Whitman Way, the project site extends through 

the Shelter Creek Condominiums. Construction activities associated with the pipeline 

replacement would temporarily displace about 24 of the 33 parking spaces in Lot B (see 

Figure 3-5). In addition, pipeline construction would restrict access to parking, including 

the remaining nine spaces in Lot B; the 157 spaces in the lower level of Garage 4; and the 

38 spaces in Lot C typically accessed from Shelter Creek Lane (further described below). 

Outside of daily construction hours (generally 7 a.m. to 5 p.m.), excavated areas would 

be covered with steel plates, and access to these parking areas from Shelter Creek Lane 

would be available. 

During construction hours, access into and out of the lower level of Garage 4, Lot B, and 

Lot C could be maintained via a 12-foot-wide fire lane that connects Lot C with the 

Shelter Creek Condominiums driveway at Whitman Way (Intersection #8). Because the 

fire lane does not allow for two-way travel, alternate one-way traffic operations would be 

required, and flaggers with radio communication would control alternating outbound 

and inbound vehicles. Traffic volumes conducted in September 2012 indicate that 

between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m., there are about 145 inbound and 177 outbound vehicle trips 

associated with Garage 4 and Lot C, with roughly 200 vehicles trips (inbound/outbound) 

between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. See discussion in Impact TR-2 regarding maintaining 

emergency vehicle access within the Shelter Creek Condominiums site during project 

construction. 

 

Whitman Way. Construction activities across Whitman Way would result in temporary 

displacement of on-street parking between Shelter Creek Lane and Courtland Drive 

during construction hours. Approximately 30 vehicles can park on the north side of the 

street and 10 vehicles on the south side of the street on this segment of Whitman Way. 

During field surveys conducted for the proposed project, on-street parking spaces on 

Whitman Way were close to fully occupied during the evening and overnight hours 

(LCW Consulting, 2012c). The segment of Whitman Way between Shelter Creek Lane 

and Courtland Drive was about 30 percent occupied during the midday period. During 

the 42 days of construction activities on Whitman Way, on-street parking would be 

restricted to allow for alternate one-way roadway operations. The daytime parking 

demand would be accommodated further west on Whitman Way, on Courtland Drive, 

and on Shelter Creek Lane, which have available capacity during the daytime hours. 

Drivers parking on other streets may need to walk further between their parked vehicle 

and destinations in the project vicinity. In addition, approximately three on-street 

parking spaces may be displaced in the project construction zone on Whitman Way 





overnight, but the other parking spaces on Whitman Way would be available outside of 

construction hours. 

San Bruno Chinese Church. The San Bruno Chinese Church has a total of about 80 

parking spaces on site (including the 15 spaces in the proposed staging area). On 

weekends, all parking spaces are occupied; however, no spillover onto adjacent streets is 

required to accommodate the church’s parking demand (Wu, 2012). Construction staging 

at the San Bruno South site includes the north parking lot on the San Bruno Chinese 

Church property. The project construction activities would occupy the parking area 

during the week, and would return the area during the weekend for church parking, as 

described in Chapter 3, Project Description. Therefore, the project would not change the 

available parking supply at the San Bruno Chinese Church during peak demand periods, 

and the parking demand associated with church services would continue to be 

accommodated on site. 

 

SFPUC ROW along San Bruno Chinese Church. A separate proposed staging area at the 

San Bruno South site is the vacant SFPUC ROW along the unpaved area directly east of 

Courtland Drive. This area extends about 200 feet between the north and south 

driveways to the San Bruno Chinese Church, and can accommodate 15 to 20 vehicles for 

unofficial parking during soccer practices and/or games. Although parking is not legally 

permitted at this location, vehicles jump the curb to park perpendicular to the roadway 

in this area. This unofficial parking area would be part of the San Bruno South staging 

area throughout the 9-month construction duration at this site. Vehicles that currently 

park there would have to park at official parking lots, such as the parking lots at the 

southern end of the high school. 

Overall, the PPSU construction staging would result in minimal changes to existing 

parking conditions in the vicinity of the San Bruno Chinese Church and along Courtland 

Drive. 

 

Peninsula High School. The Peninsula High School campus contains 220 parking spaces 

in three parking lots supporting various uses, including a continuing education school, 

the Crayon College daycare, Central Peninsula Church, and sports activities at the 

adjacent athletic fields. The portion of the north parking lot that is fenced off and not 

currently used for parking is proposed as an additional staging area during construction 

activities. 

On weekdays, the existing parking supply meets the demand associated with the various 

uses. Construction trips to and from the staging area would not interfere with the 

passenger drop-off or pick-up activities associated with the Crayon College, which occur 

at the drop-off circle and at the rear of the high school near the playground. Construction 

activities at the San Bruno South site, including construction worker parking, would not 

occupy any on-street parking lanes on Courtland Drive. 

On Sundays, when soccer games and other sports activities at the athletic fields overlap 

with church services at the San Bruno Chinese Church and the Central Peninsula Church, 

parking spaces in the north high school parking lot are fully used. To manage the 

parking conditions during these overlapping periods, the Conditional Use Permit for the 





Millbrae Site 

Central Peninsula Church issued by the City of San Bruno (City of San Bruno, 2011) 

requires a parking management strategy that restricts parking for church-related 

activities to the basketball courts; it also prohibits church parking in areas adjacent to the 

athletic fields, as well as on-street parking on Courtland Drive. In addition, the 

Conditional Use Permit identifies overflow parking for the church and sports activities at 

the southern parking lots in front of the school (approximately 60 spaces) and behind the 

school (approximately 50 parking spaces). Because the proposed staging area would not 

affect the on-street parking supply on Courtland Drive or the off-street parking supply 

within the Peninsula High School, it would not affect parking use. 


Construction access routes for the Millbrae site are presented on Figure 3-6. Construction traffic 

would result in short-term increases in traffic volumes on a number of roadways in the vicinity of 

the Millbrae site for an estimated construction period of 4.5 months. Primary access roadways 

that would experience short-term traffic increases would include Larkspur Drive, Ridgewood 

Drive, and Lomita Avenue on the west side of the site, and Bertocchi Lane and Capuchino Drive 

on the east side of the site. Pipeline replacement construction activities at the Millbrae site would 

generate an average of 64 and a maximum of 170 vehicle trips (inbound and outbound) on a daily 

basis. During the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, there would be a maximum of 16 construction truck 

trips accessing the project site, and 20 construction worker vehicle trips. 

The impact of the increase in peak hour traffic volumes was analyzed for three study 

intersections: Helen Drive/Larkspur (Intersection #9), Ridgewood Drive/Banbury Lane 

(Intersection #10), and Santa Margarita Avenue/Capuchino Drive (Intersection #11). All three 

study intersections are unsignalized. As indicated in Table 5.6-9, with the addition of the 

construction-generated vehicle trips during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, average vehicle delays 

would increase slightly; however, intersection LOS would remain the same as under existing 

conditions. Therefore, the impact from short-term increases in traffic volumes during 

construction at the Millbrae site would be less than significant. 

As indicated in Table 5.6-9, the worst approach (northbound) at the study intersection of Helen 

Drive/Larkspur Drive (Intersection #9) would continue to operate at LOS C during the a.m. peak 

hour, and LOS B during the p.m. peak hour. PPSU construction-related vehicles would access the 

Millbrae Site via Larkspur Drive and Ridgewood Drive (see Figure 3-6). Therefore, PPSU 

construction traffic would not conflict with a.m. peak period drop-off or p.m. peak period pickup 

activities at the Meadows Elementary School, which occur on Helen Drive about 700 feet 

north of Larkspur Drive. Similarly, the worst approach (southbound) at the study intersection of 

Santa Margarita Avenue/Capuchino Drive (Intersection #11) would continue to operate at LOS A 

during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. PPSU construction-related vehicles would access the 

Millbrae Site via Capuchino Drive. Therefore, PPSU construction traffic would not conflict with 

a.m. peak period drop-off or p.m. peak period pick-up activities at the Glen Oaks/Millbrae 

Montessori School. Therefore, the traffic impact from construction activities at the Millbrae site 

on the intersections described above would be less than significant. 






In the vicinity of the Millbrae site, SamTrans Route 43 runs in both directions along Helen Drive, 

Mosswood Lane, Ridgewood Drive, and Lomita Avenue. The Millbrae construction vehicle 

access route would overlap with the SamTrans Route 43 for about 0.50 mile, for the section of 

Lomita Avenue between the access driveway and Ridgewood Drive, and Ridgewood Drive 

between Lomita Avenue and Mosswood Lane. Because construction vehicles may be able to 

access the Millbrae site from four access routes, and because traffic volumes are relatively low on 

Lomita Avenue and Ridgewood Drive (about 1,200 vehicles per day), the increase in construction 

vehicles on these streets would not substantially affect SamTrans Route 43 service. Therefore, 

construction-related impacts on public transit would be less than significant. 


There are no designated bicycle routes or bicycle lanes in the immediate vicinity of the Millbrae 

site; bicyclists currently share the travel lanes with vehicles. Construction activities would not 

result in any travel lane closures in the vicinity of the project site or along access routes, and 

bicycle travel would be maintained throughout the construction period. Because bicycle travel 

would be maintained, and because the number of construction vehicles generated on an hourly 

basis would not be substantial (about 36 vehicles during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours when 

construction workers would be commuting to and from the project area, and between 3 and 16 

vehicles during the nonpeak hours), project-related impacts on bicycle travel in the vicinity of the 

Millbrae site would be less than significant. Potential impacts related to bicycle safety are 

addressed below under Impact TR-3. 


Pedestrian volumes in the vicinity of the Millbrae site are generally low throughout the day. 

Construction activities would not affect sidewalks adjacent to the project site, with the exception 

of a new curb cut that would be provided to the project site on the east side of Ridgewood Drive 

at Banbury Lane. At this location, pedestrian access would be maintained across the driveway. 

Therefore, construction activities would not substantially affect pedestrian travel in the vicinity of 

the project site, and construction-related impacts on pedestrian travel would be less than 

significant. Potential impacts related to pedestrian safety, including increase in vehicle traffic in 

the vicinity of nearby schools, are addressed below under Impact TR-3. 


The construction worker parking demand at the Millbrae site is estimated to be 20 vehicles per 

day. Construction workers would park on local streets in the vicinity of the construction zone, 

such as on Ridgewood Drive, Mosswood Lane, and Banbury Lane. During the weekday work 

period, on-street parking is generally available on these streets, and would provide sufficient 

capacity to accommodate the anticipated parking demand for construction worker vehicles (LCW 

Consulting, 2012c). 

Construction activities or staging at the Millbrae site would not use on-street parking lanes, and 


Millbrae site. 






In addition to the staging areas at or near each PPSU project site, a common staging area at 

SFPUC’s Baden Valve Lot in South San Francisco would be used for the 12-month duration of 

project construction. This staging area would be used for temporary field offices, staging of 

equipment and materials, and construction worker parking. Approximately 20 construction 

worker vehicles could be accommodated within this 0.32-acre site. Vehicle trips to and from the 

site would include construction workers traveling to and from home (about 40 vehicle trips per 

day), and trips between the staging area and project sites (estimated at 20 vehicle trips per day), 

for a total of 60 vehicle trips (inbound and outbound per day). 


Driveway access into the common staging area is via West Orange Avenue. Access routes 

between I-280 and the staging area include Westborough Boulevard and El Camino Real, both of 

which are high traffic volume arterials carrying more than 10,000 vehicles per day. PPSU 

construction activities would result in vehicle trips traveling between the various construction 

sites and the common staging area. The percent increase in traffic volumes associated with 

construction worker parking and temporary field offices would not be substantial relative to the 

background traffic volumes (less than 0.2 percent of existing traffic volumes), nor would the 

project-generated construction trips substantially disrupt traffic flows on Westborough 

Boulevard or El Camino Real. Therefore, the effect of short-term traffic increases would be less 



Access to the common staging area would be via an existing driveway on West Orange Avenue, 

and increased vehicle trips into and out of the staging area would not affect SamTrans transit 

service or bus stops on El Camino Real. Therefore, the impact of the use of the common staging 

area to support PPSU project construction activities on public transit would be less than 

significant. 


West Orange Avenue and El Camino Real are Class III bicycle facilities. Vehicle access to the site 

would be via an existing driveway on West Orange Avenue, and the increase in vehicle trips into 

and out of the staging area would not substantially affect bicycle travel on West Orange Avenue. 

Therefore, PPSU project-related impacts on bicycle travel in the vicinity of the common staging 

area would be less than significant. Potential impacts related to bicycle safety are addressed 

below under Impact TR-3. 


Pedestrian volumes on the sidewalks in the vicinity of the common staging area on West Orange 

Avenue and El Camino Real are generally low throughout the day. The increase in vehicle trips 

into and out of the staging area would not substantially affect pedestrian travel in the area. 

Therefore, construction traffic would not substantially affect pedestrian travel on West Orange 

Avenue, and PPSU project-related impacts on pedestrian travel would be less than significant. 

Potential impacts related to pedestrian safety are addressed below under Impact TR-3. 






The common staging area in South San Francisco would accommodate field offices as well as 

construction worker parking for up to 20 vehicles for the 12-month duration of the PPSU project. 

It is not anticipated that any construction workers would park on-street on West Orange Avenue 

or other local streets in the vicinity of the common staging area. On-street parking is not 

permitted on either side of El Camino Real. 

Conclusion 

As described in the analysis above, impacts to transportation and circulation would be less than 

significant. 

Impact TR-2: Project construction would not result in inadequate emergency access. 


At the South San Francisco and Millbrae sites, project construction activities would occur within 

or near the SFPUC ROW, and not within the travel lanes of adjacent roadways. At the Colma, San 

Bruno North, and San Bruno South sites, a portion of the staging areas or construction activities 

would occur within the adjacent travel lanes or parking/access routes. Construction-related traffic 

associated with project activities would not be substantial (an average of 44 and a maximum of 

176 vehicle trips per day, depending on the project site), and would not pose an obstacle to 

emergency response vehicles. Project construction activities would not require full closures of 

any streets, except for intermittent temporary closures associated with large truck and equipment 

maneuvering, and emergency vehicles would have continuous access to all public roadways. 

 

 

 

 

At the Colma site, a portion of the adjacent Kohl’s department store site would be used as 

a staging area. However, emergency vehicle access to and along the rear of the building 

would be maintained. 

At the San Bruno North site, the right-turn only lane on the I-280 northbound off-ramp 

would be temporarily closed for a period of up to 10 days, however, the two adjacent 

travel lanes would remain open and available for emergency response vehicles. 

At the San Bruno South site, pipeline replacement would require temporary closure of 

one travel lane at a time on Whitman Way, necessitating alternate one-way traffic 

operations for a period of up to 21 calendar days per pipeline. During alternate one-way 

traffic operations, emergency vehicle access to the frontage of the Park Plaza Apartments 

on Whitman Way would be maintained. 

At the San Bruno South site, pipeline replacement would require closure of a portion of 

fire lane #3 within the Shelter Creek Condominiums during daytime construction hours. 

This closure would also restrict access to the lower level of Garage 4, Lot B, and Lot C 

during construction. An alternate fire access route and ingress/egress for the lower level 

of Garage 4, Lot B, and Lot C would be provided from the Whitman Way driveway via 

the fire lane that connects the parking lots with that driveway. The San Bruno Fire 

Marshall has requested that Plans and Specifications at 65 percent design completion, 

along with the traffic control plans, be submitted to the San Bruno Fire Marshall when 





available for review and comment (Allan, 2012). For additional details regarding this 

access, see Mitigation Measure M-TR-3: Traffic Control Plan, below. 

In addition, in some instances, traffic flow could be temporarily interrupted for short periods of 

time to accommodate large construction vehicles accessing the five PPSU project sites; however, 

travel lanes would be reopened and construction vehicles would move to the side of the road to 

accommodate any passing emergency vehicles. Therefore, impacts on emergency vehicle access 


Impact TR-3: Project construction activities could decrease the safety of public 

roadways for vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians. (Less than Significant with 

Mitigation) 

Construction vehicles traveling to and from the project sites and the common staging area would 

share the roadway with other vehicles, as well as with bicyclists. The increase in vehicles 

traveling to and from the project sites during construction could increase traffic safety hazards 

due to potential conflicts between construction vehicles (with slower speeds and wider turning 

radii than autos) and automobiles, bicyclists, and pedestrians. See Section 5.2, Land Use and 

Land Use Planning, for community safety concerns. Increased traffic safety hazards by site, based 

on the impact assessment by mode provided in Impact TR-1, include: 

 

 

 

 

At the Colma site, a portion of the Kohl’s Department Store parking lot would be used 

for construction staging, which would result in an increase in conflicts between 

construction vehicles, and pedestrians and motorists. If construction activities overlap 

with the December holiday shopping season, traffic volumes at the Kohl’s parking lot 

would increase, thereby increasing the potential for conflicts. 

At the South San Francisco site, construction vehicles traveling into and out of the 

project site via new driveways on Arroyo Drive and West Orange Avenue would result 

in an increase in conflicts between construction vehicles and pedestrians. In particular, 

the sidewalk adjacent to the SFPUC ROW on West Orange Avenue is used by 

pedestrians traveling between the South San Francisco Public Library and the 

commercial areas along Camaritas Avenue. 

At the San Bruno North site, the project site would be accessed from the I-280 freeway 

off-ramp, resulting in an unexpected traffic pattern on the off-ramp, and increased 

potential for conflicts between construction vehicles and vehicles exiting I-280 

northbound. If the SFPUC determines that temporary closures of the right-turn lane of 

the I-280 off-ramp and the eastbound San Bruno Avenue West lane adjacent to the project 

site would need to occur simultaneously, Mitigation Measure TR-1, as described in 

Impact TR-1 above, is required to be implemented; the construction contractor shall 

coordinate with the City of San Bruno and Caltrans, and incorporate the measure into the 

traffic control plan. 

At the San Bruno South site, pipeline replacement across Whitman Way would include 

temporary closures of Whitman Way, as well as sidewalk closures requiring pedestrian 

detours. Construction activities at the Shelter Creek Condominiums would require a 

temporary reroute of access/egress to the lower level of Garage 4, Lot B, and Lot C via the 





fire lane from the driveway on Whitman Way (Intersection #8). These construction 

activities would result in an increase in conflicts between construction vehicles, and 

pedestrians and vehicles (including transit) along Whitman Way and within the Shelter 

Creek Condominiums. 

 

 

At the Millbrae site, construction activities would result in increased traffic volumes in 

the project vicinity and in the proximity of the Meadows Elementary School and the Glen 

Oaks/Millbrae Montessori School, thereby increasing the potential for conflicts between 

construction vehicles, and vehicles and pedestrians traveling to and from these schools. 

In addition, construction vehicle access to the SFPUC ROW would require a new 

driveway, and therefore a new conflict point, on Ridgewood Drive. 

At the Common Staging Area in South San Francisco, PPSU would result in a temporary 

minor increase in vehicular activity at the site. 

The potential increase in traffic safety hazards during construction is considered to be a 

potentially significant impact. However, impacts related to increased safety hazards during 

construction activities would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with implementation of 

Mitigation Measure M-TR-3: Traffic Control Plan. This measure would require that SFPUC take 

actions to minimize traffic safety hazards during construction (i.e., through the installation of 

signs to warn motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians of the construction zone; and use of flaggers, 

illuminated signs, and flashing yellow lights). Therefore, this impact would be less than 


Mitigation Measure M-TR-3: Traffic Control Plan 

This mitigation measure applies to all project sites, as well as the common staging area. 

The SFPUC or its contractor(s) shall prepare and implement a traffic control plan. The 

plan shall conform to the State’s Manual of Traffic Controls for Construction and 

Maintenance Work Areas (Caltrans, 2006), where applicable. Elements of the traffic 

control plan shall include, but not be limited to, the following: 

General Measures for All Project Sites 

 

 

 

 

Advance warning signs shall be placed upstream of work areas advising motorists, 

bicyclists, and pedestrians of the construction zone ahead in order to minimize 

hazards associated with construction activities, including the vehicular entry and 

egress of project-related construction activities. 

A public information system shall be developed and implemented to advise 

motorists, bicyclists, and nearby property owners of the impending construction 

activities (e.g., direct distribution of flyers to affected properties, email notices, 

portable message signs, and informational signs). 

All equipment and materials shall be stored within the designated work areas so as 

to avoid obstructing traffic. 

At all project sites, roadside safety protocols shall be implemented such as advance 

“Road Work Ahead,” “One Lane Road Ahead,” “Flagger Ahead,” “Prepare to Stop,” 





and “Trucks Entering Road” signs. Warning signs and speed control shall be 

provided to achieve speed reductions for safe traffic flow through the work zone. 

 

 

 

 

At all sites, pedestrian and bicycle access and circulation shall be maintained during 

project construction where it is safe to do so. Where appropriate, detours shall be 

included for bicycles and pedestrians in areas affected by project construction. 

To the maximum extent feasible, truck trips (i.e., haul trucks and heavy construction 

equipment) shall be scheduled outside of the a.m. (7 to 9 a.m.) and p.m. (4 to 6 p.m.) 

peak commute periods. 

At all project sites, construction shall be coordinated with facility owners or 

administrators of sensitive land uses such as schools, police and fire stations, 

churches, hospitals, and residences. Facility owners or operators shall be notified in 

advance by the SFPUC regarding the timing, location, and duration of construction 

activities, and the locations of detours and lane closures. 

Roadway rights-of-ways shall be repaired or restored to their original conditions or 

better upon completion of construction. 

Specific Measures for Project Sites 

 

 

 

 

At the Colma site, construction worker parking shall be accommodated within the 

project area boundary. 

At the South San Francisco site, flaggers shall be provided at new project driveway 

on West Orange Avenue to facilitate pedestrian travel adjacent to the project site. 

Construction worker parking shall be accommodated within the project staging area, 

or within the common staging area; carpooling between the South San Francisco site 

and the common staging area shall be established. 

At the San Bruno North site, the construction contractor shall obtain an 

encroachment permit from Caltrans, and comply with Caltrans requirements for 

traffic control activities within the State right-of-way, as described in Section 3.10, 

Required Permits. Construction worker parking on local residential streets shall be 

limited to 10 vehicles. The remaining workers shall park at the common staging area, 

and carpooling between the San Bruno North site and the common staging area shall 

be established. 

At the San Bruno South site, travel lane closures on Whitman Way shall be limited 

during the a.m. (7 to 9 a.m.) and p.m. (4 to 6 p.m.) peak periods to the maximum 

extent feasible. Outside of allowed working hours or when work is not in progress, 

Whitman Way shall be restored to normal operations by covering all trenches with 

steel plates. When sidewalk closures are required on Whitman Way, pedestrian 

detour routes shall be maintained. 

At the intersection of Shelter Creek Lane and the driveway to the Shelter Creek 

Condominiums (Intersection #5), the construction contractor shall provide flaggers to 

facilitate truck access into and out of the project work area at the Shelter Creek 





Condominiums. Access to lower Garage 4, Lot B, and Lot C shall be maintained to 

the maximum extent feasible, and alternative fire access to building #3B shall be 

maintained. The construction contractor shall be required to have ready at all times 

the means necessary to accommodate emergency vehicles, such as plating over 

excavations through the use of steel place to provide for a fire lane with a minimum 

width of 12 feet. The traffic control plan shall include flaggers with radio 

communication to allow ingress/egress to the parking areas. 

Flaggers shall be provided on Courtland Drive at the construction vehicle access to 

the staging area within the Peninsula High School site, to reduce the potential for 

conflicts between construction vehicles and vehicles destined to other parking or 

passenger loading/unloading areas within the site. If construction activities occur on 

weekends, flaggers shall be provided. Plans and Specifications at 65 percent design 

completion, along with the traffic control plan, shall be submitted to the San Bruno 

Fire Marshall when available for review and comment. 

Construction worker parking shall be accommodated within the project area 

boundary. 

 

At the Millbrae site, the SFPUC or the construction contractor shall coordinate with 

the schedule of schools to minimize impacts on school operations to the maximum 

extent feasible. At the Millbrae site, to the maximum extent feasible, construction 

haul trips shall not be conducted prior to 9 a.m. or after 3 p.m. when children are 

traveling to and from the Meadows Elementary School and the Glen Oaks/Millbrae 

Montessori School. Similarly, if determined appropriate by the school administrators, 

the SFPUC or the construction contractor shall provide traffic control officers at the 

intersections of Helen Drive/Larkspur Drive (Intersection #9) near the Meadows 

Elementary School, and Santa Margarita Avenue/Capuchino Drive (Intersection #11) 

near the Glen Oaks/Millbrae Montessori School. 

If sidewalk closures are required on Ridgewood Drive, pedestrian detour routes shall 

be provided. Construction worker parking shall be accommodated on-street. 

 

At the Common Staging Area, construction worker parking for the PPSU project 

shall be accommodated within the site, as feasible. 


Impact TR-4: Vehicle trips generated during project operation and maintenance 

activities would not substantially conflict with an applicable congestion management 

program. (Less than Significant) 

After completion of project construction activities, the replacement pipelines would require 

periodic operations review and maintenance, similar to existing conditions, and would not 

generate new vehicle trips. With the proposed project, the number of vehicle trips related to 

supply deliveries would not be expected to change compared to existing conditions (and would 

be considerably less than the construction vehicle trips analyzed in Impact TR-1). Overall, 

operation and maintenance of the replacement pipelines would not result in an increase in traffic 





volumes on nearby streets and intersections. Therefore, intersection operations on roadways used 

to access the project sites would be similar to existing conditions, the proposed project would not 

result in long-term impacts on roadways used to access the project sites, and potential impacts on 

the local CMP would be less than significant. 


Impact C-TR: Project construction could result in cumulative traffic increases and traffic 

safety hazards on local and regional roads. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) 

The geographic scope of cumulative impacts related to transportation and circulation includes 

the roadways adjacent to the project site and common staging area, and truck access routes to 

and from the regional roadway network. 

As indicated in Table 5.1-1, five existing and probable future projects could contribute to 

cumulative impacts related to transportation and circulation, including SFPUC’s Regional 

Groundwater Storage and Recovery (GSR) project in Colma and South San Francisco, and Harry 

Tracy Water Treatment Plant (HTWTP) Long Term Improvement project in Millbrae; the 599 

Cedar Avenue residential project in San Bruno; the Parkside Intermediate School Classroom 

Building replacement project in San Bruno; and the Safeway Store Replacement project in 

Millbrae. As indicated in Table 5.1-1, the timelines for construction of the new residential project 

and the classroom replacement project in San Bruno, and the Safeway store replacement project 

in Millbrae are unknown at this time, and therefore the contribution of these projects to 

cumulative impacts during the PPSU project’s 12-month construction period (i.e., between 2014 

and 2015) is not known. The construction schedule for the GSR project components proposed at 

the PPSU Colma site and near the PPSU common staging area would overlap with the PPSU 

project. In addition, the tree removal at the PPSU Millbrae site would overlap with the 

completion of construction activities at the HTWTP. 

Traffic Impacts 

Cumulative traffic impacts include temporary short-term traffic increases related to construction 

vehicles traveling to and from the sites, as well as long-term vehicle trips generated by the new 

land uses (i.e., operational traffic increases). Most of the cumulative operational traffic increases 

would be generated by the residential development in San Bruno. The Parkside Intermediate 

School replacement project in San Bruno and the Safeway store replacement project in Millbrae 

would replace existing facilities and would not be expected to result in a substantial increase in 

vehicle trips. Periodic operations and maintenance of SFPUC facilities (Regional GSR wells and 

facilities, HTWTP Long-Term Improvements Project, and the PPSU project) would be similar to 

existing operations and would not result in a noticeable increase in vehicle trips to the area. Thus, 

long-term traffic increases would not be substantial, and cumulative impacts would be less than 

significant. 

Traffic Safety Hazards Impacts 

Construction of the cumulative projects would result in short-term cumulative traffic increases 

and increased traffic safety hazards. These cumulative impacts, and the PPSU project 

contribution to cumulative traffic increases and safety hazards, would only occur during the 





PPSU project’s approximately 12-month construction period (i.e., 2014 to 2015). GSR construction 

activities at the Colma site would overlap in schedule with the PPSU construction activities at the 

site for up to the 2-month PPSU project construction duration; the location of the GSR project 

would also overlap the PPSU staging area at Kohl’s Department Store parking lot, but would not 

extend into any public roadways. Construction of the GSR project would temporarily limit access 

to the back of Kohl’s, but customers would continue to have access via the entrance at El Camino 

Real. The GSR project alternative site adjacent to Collins Avenue in Colma would extend into 

Collins Avenue, and may require partial lane closure during construction. In addition, 

construction activities at the common staging area and adjacent to Southwood Drive (a minor 

residential street south of West Orange Avenue) may require partial or complete roadway 

closure. 

Construction of the HTWTP project was initiated in 2011, and soil excavation and off-haul is 

nearing completion. The HTWTP project would have similar access routes to I-280 ramps at San 

Bruno Avenue West and Cunningham Way. The HTWTP project Environmental Impact Report 

identified a potential significant project and cumulative impact at the intersection of the I-280 onramp 

and Cunningham Way during the a.m. peak hour, and identified a mitigation measure that 

would reduce the impact to less-than-significant levels (the mitigation measure included 

installing and operating a temporary traffic signal or use of flaggers at the intersection of the 

I-280 on-ramp and Cunningham Way during the a.m. peak hour). Significant cumulative impacts 

could potentially occur between July and December 2013 when construction vehicle traffic would 

be greatest, and after which the construction vehicle trips would decrease by half. Because the 

PPSU project would begin in 2014 and end in 2015, the potential for overlap during the peak 

phase of the HTWTP project is anticipated to be minimal. Construction activities at the San Bruno 

South site would add four truck trips (two inbound and two outbound) to this intersection 

during the a.m. peak hour, and up to 10 inbound construction worker trips. These volumes 

would not contribute considerably to the movements that would operate poorly at this 

intersection during construction of the HTWTP project. 

Overall, localized cumulative construction-related transportation and circulation impacts could 

occur as a result of cumulative projects that generate increased traffic at the same time and on the 

same roads as the proposed project, causing increased traffic safety hazards; although, as 

described above, the potential for overlap and the amount of overlapping traffic volumes is 

anticipated to be minimal. The cumulative impact on traffic safety hazards would be potentially 

significant depending on the amount of overlapping traffic. With implementation of Mitigation 

Measure M-TR-1: Maintain Traffic Flow on San Bruno Avenue West During the A.M. Peak 

Hour, which would require that the SFPUC contractor maintain the eastbound traffic flow 

through the intersection of I-280 Northbound ramps/San Bruno Avenue West by plating over the 

access pit that extends into the eastbound lane of San Bruno Avenue West during the a.m. peak 

period, and Mitigation Measure M-TR-3: Traffic Control Plan, which provides methods to 

reduce the effects of overlapping traffic and Mitigation Measure C-TR: Assign a SFPUC Water 

System Improvement Program Projects Construction Coordinator, the project’s traffic increases 

on local and regional roads and resulting increased traffic safety hazards would be minimized. 

Therefore, with mitigation, the proposed project’s contribution to cumulative traffic safety hazard 

impacts would not be cumulatively considerable and impacts would be less than significant 

with mitigation. 





Mitigation Measure C-TR: Assign SFPUC Water System Improvement Program 

Projects Construction Coordinator 


Due to the potential for overlapping project activities and the operation of construction 

vehicles to affect travel along local roadways, the SFPUC shall assign a qualified 

construction coordinator responsible for coordinating the project-specific traffic control 

plan developed as part of Mitigation Measure TR-3: Traffic Control Plan with other 

SFPUC projects, including, but not limited to the Regional GSR project and the HTWTP 

Long-Term Improvements project. Throughout the construction schedule for the SFPUC 

projects in the Water System Improvement Program Peninsula Region, the SFPUC 

construction coordinator shall work with local and regional agencies to minimize local 

and regional traffic impacts, and shall incorporate these measures into the SFPUC’s 

project-specific traffic control plans. Such measures could include, but would not be 

limited to, monitoring during construction to identify intersections or areas of 

problematic cumulative congestion or hazard; and rerouting or coordinating the timing 

of vehicular or truck trips to avoid or minimize such congestion or hazard. 


Allan, Jim, 2012. Personal communication between San Bruno Battalion Chief/Fire Marshall Jim 

Allan and Calvin Huey, SFPUC Peninsula Pipelines Seismic Upgrade Project Manager. 

September. 

Caltrans (California Department of Transportation), 2006. Manual of Traffic Controls for 

Construction and Maintenance Work Areas. 

Caltrans (California Department of Transportation), 2009. 2009 Annual Average Daily Truck 

Traffic on the California State Highway System. 

Caltrans (California Department of Transportation), 2010. 2010 Annual Average Daily Traffic. 

C/CAG (City and County Association of Governments of San Mateo County), 2011. Final 

Congestion Management Program for 2011. 

City of Millbrae, 1998. City of Millbrae General Plan, Chapter 4, Circulation Element. Adopted 


City of San Bruno, 2009. City of San Bruno General Plan. Adopted March 24, 2009. 

City of San Bruno, 2011. City of San Bruno Planning Commission Staff Report, September 20, 

2011. 

City of South San Francisco, 1999. City of South San Francisco General Plan, Chapter 4, 

Transportation. 


Store Manager and Mara Feeney, Mara Feeney & Associates. September 20. 





G&E Engineering Systems, Inc., 2012. CUW 36702 Peninsula Pipeline Seismic Upgrade Project, 

Final Conceptual Engineering Report. April. 

LCW Consulting, 2011a. 24-Hour Counts on Courtland Drive, Shelter Creek Lane, Larkspur 

Drive, and Lomita Avenue, April 2011. (Located in Appendix C of this Environmental Impact 

Report [EIR.) 

LCW Consulting, 2011b. AM and PM peak period Traffic and Bicycle Volume Counts conducted 

in April and October 2011. (Located in Appendix C of this EIR.) 

LCW Consulting, 2012a. 24-hour Counts on Serramonte Boulevard. March. (Located in 

Append]ix C of this EIR.) 

LCW Consulting, 2012b. AM and PM peak period Traffic Volume Counts conducted in 

September and October 2012. (Located in Appendix C of this EIR.) 

LCW Consulting, 2012c. On-Street Parking Supply and Occupancy Surveys. October. (Located in 

Appendix C of this EIR.) 

Roche, Anna, 2011. Personal e-mail communication between Anna Roche, PPSU Environmental 

Project Manager, SFPUC, and Hannah Young, URS. November 8. 

SamTrans (San Mateo County Transit), 2010. Bus System Map effective February 2, 2010. 

Available online at: http://www.samtrans.com/schedulesandmaps/maps.html, accessed on 

January 4, 2012. 

San Mateo County, 2012. Traffic Volumes 2000-2006. Available online at: http://www.co. 

sanmateo.ca.us/portal/site/publicworks/menuitem.fd2e8ceae48fddfc82439054d17332a0/? 

vgnextoid=dd2711fd2f01f110VgnVCM1000001d37230aRCRD&cpsextcurrchannel=1. 

Town of Colma, 2000. Town of Colma General Plan, Chapter 5.04, Circulation Element. Adopted 

April 2000. 

Transportation Research Board, 2000. National Research Council, Highway Capacity Manual 

Washington D.C., 2000. 

Wu, Andrew, 2012. Personal communication between Daniel Jaimes, SFPUC Communications 

Coordinator, and Pastor Wu, San Bruno Chinese Church; and Meeting Notes from conference call 

with San Bruno Chinese Church. September 14 and September 20. 




5.7 Noise 

This section describes the existing noise environment in the vicinity of the proposed Peninsula 

Pipelines Seismic Upgrade (PPSU) project, presents relevant noise and vibration regulations, 

identifies sensitive noise and vibration receptors that could be affected by the project, and 

evaluates the potential noise and vibration impacts of the proposed project. Mitigation measures 

to avoid or reduce adverse impacts are identified, as appropriate. 

5.7.1 Setting 

5.7.1.1 Noise Descriptors 

Noise is commonly defined as unwanted sound that annoys or disturbs people and that can 

potentially cause an adverse physiological effect on human health. Because excessive noise is an 

environmental pollutant that can interfere with human activities, evaluation of noise is necessary 

when considering the environmental impacts of a proposed project. 

Sound is energy transmitted by pressure waves through a medium such as air or water. Sound 

can be characterized by various parameters including the rate of oscillation (frequency) and the 

pressure level (amplitude). The sound pressure level has become the most common descriptor 

used to characterize the loudness of a sound. Because human hearing can detect a very wide 

range of intensity, a logarithmic scale or decibel scale is used to keep sound pressure levels 

within a manageable range. Since the human ear does not hear sound equally well at all 

frequencies, sound measurements are weighted to emphasize the frequencies to which humans 

are most sensitive, a process called “A-weighting.” The resulting sound level is expressed in 

terms of A-weighted decibels (dBAs). Table 5.7-1 presents the sound pressure level of common 

everyday sources. 

Human perception is such that a change in sound level of 1 decibel (dB) is the smallest change 

perceived by an attentive listener, a change of 3 dB is just noticeable to the casual listener, a 

change of 5 dB is clearly noticeable, and a change of 10 dB is perceived as a halving or doubling 

of the sound level. 

Different descriptors are used to characterize the time-varying nature of sound (see 

Appendix D-1 for more details). The equivalent continuous noise level (Leq) is the level of 

constant noise energy that is equivalent to the time-varying sound energy over a specified time 

period; an hourly Leq refers to the energy equivalent level of sound for each 1-hour period. The 

day-night average sound level (Ldn) is the A-weighted Leq noise level over a 24-hour period with a 

10 dB penalty applied to sound levels between 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. to account for the higher 

potential for disturbance to human activities in the nighttime. Because of the 10-dB penalty 

during nighttime hours, the Ldn is very sensitive to late night noise events. The community noise 

equivalent level (CNEL) is similar to the Ldn with an additional 5 dB penalty applied to sound 

levels between 7 p.m. and 10 p.m. Typically, in environments where transportation sources are 

the primary noise source, the difference between the CNEL and the Ldn is trivial (1 dB or less). 

Based on this assumption, all data presented in this report are Ldn rather than CNEL. 




5.7 Noise 

Table 5.7-1 

Typical A-weighted Sound Levels 

OUTDOOR 

SOURCES 

INDOOR 

SOURCES 

Threshold of pain 

Thunder 

Jackhammer, 10 ft 

Motorcycle, 25 ft 

Noisy urban daytime, 

Heavy traffic 

Quiet urban daytime 

Quiet urban nighttime 

Quiet suburban nighttime 

Quiet rural nighttime 

Threshold of hearing 

dBA 

120 

| 

| 

110 

| 

| 

100 

| 

| 

90 

| 

| 

80 

| 

| 

70 

| 

| 

60 

| 

| 

50 

| 

| 

40 

| 

| 

30 

| 

| 

20 

| 

| 

10 

| 

| 

0 

Rock band 

Nightclub 

Food blender, 3 ft 

Garbage disposal, 3 ft 

Car interior, 70 mph 

Vacuum cleaner, 10 ft 

Normal conversation, 3 ft 

Large office 

Dishwasher in next room 

Small theater, large conference room 

Soft whisper, bedroom at night 

Concert hall background 

Broadcast/recording studio 

Sources: Foreman, 1990; Caltrans, 1998; Harris, 1998; Long, 2006. 




5.7 Noise 

Airborne noise sources attenuate as a function of the distance due to geometric spreading. Sound 

from point sources, such as an excavator, decreases at a rate of 6 dB per doubling of distance (this 

phenomenon is known as the “inverse square law”). Sound from line sources, such as highways, 

decreases at a rate of 3 dB per doubling of distance. 

Topography (hills), buildings, and other barriers can further decrease noise levels by interrupting 

the line-of-sight. The decrease varies but could be as high as 20 dB for large hills or buildings. 

Because decibels are logarithmic units, sound pressure levels cannot be added or subtracted by 

ordinary arithmetic means. For example, if one car produces a noise level of 60 dBA when it 

passes an observer, two cars passing simultaneously would not produce 120 dBA. Rather, they 

would combine to produce 63 dBA. When combining sound levels, Table 5.7-2 may be used to 

approximate the combined result. When a new source is introduced that is 10 dB quieter than the 

existing environment, the overall noise level is unchanged. 

Table 5.7-2 

Decibel Addition 

When Decibel Values Differ By: 

Add this Amount to the Higher Value 

Source: Caltrans, 1998. 

0 to 1 dB 3 dB 



10 dB or more 0 dB 

5.7.1.2 Vibration Descriptors 

Operation of heavy construction equipment, such as pile drivers, vibratory rollers, and hoe rams, 

create waves that radiate along the surface and downward into the earth. These surface waves 

can be felt as ground vibration. The waves dissipate energy with distance from the source; the 

amount of attenuation depends on the source, site geology, and other factors but generally 

attenuates at a rate slightly greater than 50 percent for each doubling of distance. 

Perceptible groundborne vibration is generally limited to areas within a couple hundred feet of 

construction activities. As the waves travel outward from the source, they excite the particles of 

rock and soil through which they pass, causing them to oscillate. The actual distance these 

particles move is very small, typically only a few ten-thousandths or thousandths of an inch. The 

rate or velocity (in inches per second [in/sec]) at which these particles move is the commonly 

accepted descriptor of the vibration amplitude, referred to as the peak particle velocity (PPV). 

The responses of human receptors and structures to vibration are influenced by a combination of 

factors, including soil/rock type, distance from the source, duration, and the number of events. 

Vibration transmitted through the ground can reach levels that cause structural damage; 

however, humans are very sensitive, and the vibration amplitudes that can be perceived by 

humans are well below the levels that cause cosmetic or structural damage. 




5.7 Noise 

5.7.1.3 Existing Noise Environment 

The project sites are located in primarily heavily developed suburban areas. The primary sources 

of noise at the project sites are local traffic on Interstate 280 (I-280), U. S. Highway 101 (U.S. 101), 

and surface arterial streets. 

To estimate the existing typical daytime (Leq) and 24-hour (Ldn) noise levels, a combination of 

short- and long-term noise measurements 1 were conducted in the study area at sensitive 

receptors adjacent to the five project sites (see Figures 5.7-1 through 5.7-5). The results of these 

measurements are presented in Tables 5.7-3 and 5.7-4 (short- and long-term measurements are 

denoted as ST and LT, respectively). See Appendix D-2 for additional information and the longterm 

measurement data time history plots. Measurements were previously conducted at the 

common staging area as part of the approved Baden and San Pedro Valve Lots Improvement 

Project Mitigated Negative Declaration (SF Planning, 2008), which was completed for 

improvements previously proposed by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) 

for the Baden Valve Lot. Because the noise conditions at the Baden Valve Lot remain 

substantially as described in the 2008 mitigated negative declaration, and because no new 

information is available that would change the findings of the mitigated negative declaration, the 

findings and the studies referenced therein are applicable to the common staging area for the 

PPSU project. 

Colma Site 

The Colma site is located in a primarily commercial area situated between Serramonte Boulevard 

and Collins Avenue, near El Camino Real. The ambient noise environment is dominated by local 

traffic on El Camino Real and Serramonte Boulevard with additional contributions from traffic on 

I-280 and aircraft flyovers. The average daytime 2 Leq varies from 54 to 55 dBA. 


The South San Francisco site is located in a mixed residential/commercial area and is bisected by 

Westborough Boulevard. Traffic on Westborough Boulevard is the dominant noise source, with 

local traffic and aircraft flyovers also contributing to the noise field. The average daytime Leq 

varies from 59 to 66 dBA. 


The San Bruno North site is located between an adjacent single-family residential neighborhood 

and I-280, south of San Bruno Avenue West and the Bayhill Shopping Center. Traffic on I-280 is 

the dominant noise source, with local traffic on San Bruno Avenue West and aircraft flyovers also 

contributing to the noise field. The average daytime Leq varies from 57 to 65 dBA. 

1 The long-term measurements were 24 hours each. These measurements were supplemented with short-term spotchecks 

of 1 hour each. 

2 Throughout this analysis, daytime refers to the hours between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m., and nighttime refers to the hours 

between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. 








Center 

Kohl's 



TO 1-280 FREEWAY 


") 

LT-C1 

Home Sweet Home 

Assisted Living 

COLLINS AVE 

vsa/ed U:\GIS\SFPUC_Peninsula_Pipeline\Projects\EIR\ADEIR2\Fig5_7_1_noise_Colma.mxd 10/4/2012 5:59:14 PM 

Source: SFPUC, 2011 


Cemetery 


ST-C1 

SAN ANDREAS PIPELINE NO.2/ SAPL2 



Access Route 




!( 

!( ST: Short-Term Noise Measurement 

") LT: Long-Term Noise Measurement 

C# : Denotes Location Number 

$ 

0 100 200 

Feet 


NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS 

COLMA SITE 




FIGURE 5.7-1



") 

LT-SSF2 

ST-SSF4 

!( 

ARROYO 

DR 

ST-SSF3 

!( 

CHICO CT 



SITE 

WEST ORANGE 

AVE 


ARROYO DR 

ALTA LOMA DR 




105 

Arroyo 

Drive 

CAMARITAS AVE 

OVERVIEW 

California 

Golf Club of 




vsa/ed U:\GIS\SFPUC_Peninsula_Pipeline\Projects\EIR\ADEIR2\Fig5_7_2_noise_SSF.mxd 10/4/2012 6:00:23 PM 





Boring Pit 

Access Route 

ST-SSF2 


Note: Please refer to the Baden and San Pedro Valve Lots 

Improvement Project Mitigated Negative Declaration Case No. 

2006.1314E (San Francisco Planning Department, September 

2008) for a discussion of noise in the vicinity of common staging 

area. 

SFPUC Water Transmisson 

Line 

Clubview 

Apartments 

!( 

") 

LT-SSF1 

!( 

ST-SSF1 





SSF#: Denotes Location Number 

0 75 150 

Feet 

$ 

KNOLL CIR 


Pacific 

Supermarket 

FAIRWAY DR 



0 100 200 

Feet 






FIGURE 5.7-2






!( 

ST-SBN2 

CEDARWOOD CT 


1840 

Cedarwood 

Court 

§¨¦ 280 

!( ST-SBN1 

") 

LT-SBN1 

ST-SBN3 

!( 

vsa/ed U:\GIS\SFPUC_Peninsula_Pipeline\Projects\EIR\ERO_DEIR\Fig5_7_3_noise_SanBrunoNorth.mxd 2/7/2013 10:26:29 AM 


CRESTMOOR DR 





Access Portal 

Access Route 

SFPUC Water 

Transmission Line 




SBN# : Denotes Location Number 

$ 

0 75 150 Feet 


PEPPER DR 






FIGURE 5.7-3

Shelter Creek 

Condominiums 

4B 

4A 

4D 

4C 

") 

LT-SBS4 

Shelter Creek 

Condominiums 

TO FREEWAY 

HAWTHORNE AVE 

WHITMAN WAY 

STS-SBS5 

!( 

Park Plaza Apartments 

ST-SBS2 

!( 

!( 

TO FR EEWAY 

§¨¦ 280 

ST-SBS4 

JENEVEIN AVE 


ROSEWOOD DR 

ST-SBS3 

!( 

GLENBROOK LN 

LT-SBS3 

") 

!( 

ST-SBS6 

COURTLAND DR 

FROM 

FREEWAY 

TO FR EEWAY 

Church 

Parking Lot 



U:\GIS\SFPUC_Peninsula_Pipeline\Projects\EIR\Fig5_7_4_noise_SanBrunoSouth.mxd 10/11/2012 12:06:52 PM 


Source:SFPUC, 2011 





Parking Lot 

LT-SBS1 

") 


Access Route 

SFPUC Water 

Transmission Line 

ST-SBS1 

!( 



SBS#: Denotes Location Number 

") 

LT-SBS2 

$ 

0 100 200 

Feet 








FIGURE 5.7-4


County Park 

!( 

ST-M3 

LOMITA AVE 

TERRACE DR 

ST-M7 

ROBIN LN 

!( 

!( 

ST-M6 

") 

LT-M4 

FAIRVIEW 

PL 



BAYVIEW AVE 


GUADALUPE AVE 

RIDGEWOOD DR 

BROOKSIDE LN 

ST-M2 

!( 


Glen Oaks/ 

Millbrae 


GLENWOOD DR 

ELMWOOD DR 

OAKWOOD DR 

!( 

ST-M1 


HACIENDA WAY 

FERNWOOD DR 

MOSSWOOD LN 

LT-M2 

") 

LT-M3 

") 

1094-1100 Ridgewood Drive 

vsa/ed U:\GIS\SFPUC_Peninsula_Pipeline\Projects\EIR\SC_DEIR\Fig5_7_5_noise_Millbrae.mxd 1/8/2013 5:29:39 PM 


Meadows 

Elementary 

School 

PINEHURST CT 

ST-M8 



!( 

ST-M5 


Access Route 


Access Route 

HELEN DR 

!( 

!( 

SFPUC Water 

Transmisson Line 

Sources: NAIP Aerial Imagery Summer 2010; SFPUC, 2011 

BANBURY LN 

Meadows 

Park 

LARKSPUR DR 


EVERGREEN WAY 



ST: Short-Term Noise Measurement 


M# : Denotes Location Number 

LT-M1 

0 200 400 Feet 

$ 

") 

!( 

Green Hills 

Country 

Club 

ST-M4 


MILLBRAE SITE 




FIGURE 5.7-5


5.7 Noise 

Table 5.7-3 

Long-Term Measurements – Summary of Existing Noise Levels 

Noise Level (dBA) 

Location 

Address 

Nearby Project 

Component 

Primary Noise 

Source 

Average 

Daytime Leq 

Ldn 

Colma Site 

LT-C1 

Home Sweet Home 

assisted living facility 

205 Collins Avenue 

Construction Zone El Camino Real 55 61 


LT-SSF1 

Clubview Apartments 

849 West Orange Avenue 


Westborough 

Boulevard 

60 62 

LT-SSF2 109 Arroyo Drive Construction Zone Westborough 

Boulevard 

62 65 


LT-SBN1 789 Pepper Drive Construction Zone I-280 65 66 


LT-SBS1 

LT-SBS2 


300 Piedmont Avenue 

San Bruno Chinese 

Church 

250 Courtland Drive 

Staging Area I-280 53 55 


LT-SBS3 326 Courtland Drive Construction Zone I-280 59 62 

LT-SBS4 

Shelter Creek 

Condominiums 

701 Shelter Creek Lane 

Construction Zone I-280 62 62 

Millbrae Site 

LT-M1 1120 Ridgewood Drive Construction Zone U.S. 101 52 55 

LT-M2 1086 Ridgewood Drive Staging Area U.S. 101 57 56 

LT-M3 877 Hacienda Way Construction Zone U.S. 101 52 55 

LT-M4 18 Fairview Place Access Route U.S. 101 50 53 

Source: Vibro-Acoustic Consultants (Appendix D). 

Notes: 

dBA = A-weighted sound level 

Leq = equivalent continuous noise level 

Ldn = day-night average sound level 

LT = long-term noise measurement location 

LT-C# = denotes location number 




5.7 Noise 

Location 

Colma Site 

ST-C1 

Table 5.7-4 

Short-Term Measurements – Summary of Existing Noise Levels 

Address 

Cypress Lawn Memorial Cemetery 

1370 El Camino Real 


ST-SSF1 

ST-SSF2 

Westborough Royale Assisted Living 

89 Westborough Drive 

California Golf Club 

844 West Orange Avenue 

Nearby Project 

Component 

Primary Noise Source 

Noise Level (dBA) 

Hourly Estimated 

Daytime Leq Ldn 

Staging Area El Camino Real 54 59 

Construction Zone Westborough Drive 61 62 

Construction Zone Westborough Drive 59 61 

ST-SSF3 82 to 90 Arroyo Drive Access Route Arroyo Drive and 

Camaritas Avenue 

66 68 

ST-SSF4 110 Arroyo Drive Construction Zone Arroyo Drive and I-280 61 64 


ST-SBN1 1841 Cedarwood Court Construction Zone I-280 61 70 

ST-SBN2 1820 Cedarwood Court Staging Area I-280 63 70 

ST-SBN3 780 Cedar Avenue Construction Zone I-280 57 60 


ST-SBS1 

ST-SBS2 

ST-SBS3 

Peninsula High School Athletic Fields 



2081 Whitman Way 

Apartments at 

2001 Jenevein Avenue 




ST-SBS4 20 Shelter Creek Lane Access Route I-280 65 68 

ST-SBS5 


2081 Whitman Way 

Access Route 

Whitman Way and 

Courtland Drive 

62 64 

ST-SBS6 331 Courtland Drive Access Route I-280 58 61 

Millbrae Site 

ST-M1 25 Bertocchi Lane Access Route U.S. 101 49 51 

ST-M2 

Montessori Schools 

797 Santa Margarita Avenue 

Construction Zone U.S. 101 58 60 

ST-M3 780 Lomita Avenue Access Route Lomita Avenue 63 65 

ST-M4 

Green Hills Country Club 

500 Ludeman Lane 

Construction Zone Groundskeeping 48 51 

ST-M5 916 Larkspur Drive Access Route Larkspur Drive 63 67 

ST-M6 1206 Ridgewood Drive Access Route I-280 and U.S. 101 52 54 

ST-M7 1235 Ridgewood Drive Access Route U.S. 101 54 55 

ST-M8 

Meadows Elementary School 

1101 Helen Drive 


Notes: 

dBA = A-weighted decibel 


Ldn = day-night average sound level 

ST = short-term noise measurement location 

ST-C# = denotes location number 

Access Route I-280 59 60 




5.7 Noise 


The San Bruno South site is located east of Interstate 280 in a residential area in the San Bruno 

hills, in the vicinity of Shelter Creek Lane and Whitman Way. Traffic on I-280, Courtland Drive, 

and Whitman Way are the dominant noise sources, with aircraft flyovers also contributing to the 

noise field. The average daytime Leq varies from 53 to 65 dBA. 

Millbrae Site 

The Millbrae site is located in a single-family residential neighborhood and extends through an 

open space area and golf course. Traffic on El Camino Real, U.S. 101, I-280, and local streets are 

the dominant noise sources, with aircraft flyovers also contributing to the noise field. The average 

daytime Leq varies from 48 to 63 dBA. 


The common staging area is located on the SFPUC’s Baden Valve Lot between an adjacent singlefamily 

residential neighborhood and El Camino Real. The average daytime Leq varies from 58 to 

66 dBA at the western and southern boundaries of the Baden Valve Lot (SF Planning, 2008). 

5.7.1.4 Sensitive Receptors 

Noise-sensitive land uses or receptors are typically defined as single- or multi-family residences, 

schools, daycare facilities, hospitals, churches, public libraries, or nursing homes. For this 

analysis, outdoor and recreational areas, such as parks and playgrounds, are also considered to 

be noise-sensitive receptors. Vibration-sensitive receptors would typically include single- or 

multi-family residences, historical or fragile structures, and advanced technology research or 

manufacturing facilities. 

With the exception of the Colma site, which is located in a commercial area, the project sites are 

located in primarily residential areas, with several schools, a church, a cemetery, and 

recreational/outdoor areas in the vicinity. The sensitive receptors for each site are described 

below, with the closest receptors at each site summarized in Table 5.7-5. 

Colma Site 

As shown in Figure 5.7-1, sensitive receptors near the site include the Home Sweet Home assisted 

living facility (multi-unit residence) along Collins Avenue, and the Cypress Lawn Memorial 

Cemetery along El Camino Real. The cemetery holds burial services year round during daylight 

hours in its Memorial Park, which is located approximately 110 feet from the Colma site’s 

southern staging area and 500 feet from the construction zone. The access routes to the site extend 

through primarily commercial areas. 


As shown in Figure 5.7-2, sensitive receptors near the site include single-family homes along 

Arroyo Drive, multi-family residences along West Orange Avenue and Westborough Boulevard, 




Colma 

Table 5.7-5 

Nearest Distances Between Project Sites and Sensitive Receptors 

Project Site Nearest Sensitive Receptor Type of Receptor 


Approximate Distance to Construction Activities 1 (feet) 

Tree 

Removal 

Pipeline 

Dewatering 

Mobilization 

Excavation and 

Restoration 

Home Sweet Home assisted living facility, 205 Collins Avenue Multi-unit residence NA NA 380 380 

Cypress Lawn Memorial Cemetery, 1370 El Camino Real Cemetery NA NA 110 110 

105 Arroyo Drive Single-family residence 30 NA 30 30 

Clubview Apartments, 849 West Orange Avenue Multi-family residence 550 NA 125 125 

California Golf Club of San Francisco, 844 West Orange Avenue Golf Course (recreational) 180 NA 30 30 

San Bruno North 1840 Cedarwood Court Single-family residence NA NA 15 15 


Millbrae 

Park Plaza Apartments, 2081 Whitman Way Multi-family residence NA 55 10 10 

Shelter Creek Condominiums, 20 Shelter Creek Lane Multi-family residence NA 75 10 10 

Residences along Courtland Drive Single-family residences NA 315 10 10 

Peninsula High School, 300 Piedmont Avenue School 2 NA 1,830 150 150 



Athletic Fields (recreational) 3 NA 950 40 40 

San Bruno Chinese Church, 250 Courtland Drive Church NA 1,050 30 30 

1094/1100 Ridgewood Drive Single-family residences 10 625 10 10 

Green Hills Country Club, 500 Ludeman Lane Golf Course (recreational) 10 10 10 10 

Residences along Hacienda Way Single-family residences 115 250 115 115 

Meadows Elementary School, 1101 Helen Drive School 1,250 45 1,275 1,130 

Glen Oaks and Millbrae Montessori Schools, 797 Santa Margarita Avenue School 750 825 615 750 

Residences along Helen Drive Single-family residences 1,100 36 1,125 980 

Residences along Millwood Drive and Barcelona Drive Single-family residences 1,800 40 1,800 1,800 

Residences along Millwood Drive and Magnolia Avenue Single-family residences 3,100 88 3,100 3,100 

Common Staging Area Residences along Fairway Drive Single-family residences NA NA 30 NA 


Notes: 

1 Construction activities described in Chapter 3, Project Description, include tree removal; pipeline dewatering (for shutdown, hydrostatic testing and disinfection); mobilization; shoring and 

excavation; pipeline removal and installation; intermittent dewatering; and backfill and restoration. 

2 The Peninsula High School receptor includes activities at Peninsula High School, including Crayon College (daycare) and Central Peninsula Church. 

3 The Peninsula High School athletic fields receptor includes activities sponsored by both Peninsula High School and San Bruno Community Services. 

NA = not applicable 




and the California Golf Club of San Francisco along West Orange Avenue. The nearest sensitive 

receptor is the single-family residence at 105 Arroyo Drive, located 30 feet from the project site. 

The construction zone and the southern boring pit at the South San Francisco site would be 

located near the California Golf Club of San Francisco. The golf course typically operates year 

round; operating hours vary with daylight. The access routes to the site would extend past 

commercial properties and sensitive residential receptors, such as single-family homes on Arroyo 

Drive and multi-family residential units on West Orange Avenue. 


As shown in Figure 5.7-3, sensitive receptors near the site include single-family homes along 

Cedarwood Court and Pepper Drive. The nearest sensitive receptor is the single-family residence 

at 1840 Cedarwood Drive, located 15 feet from the project site. The access routes would extend 

past sensitive receptors, including single-family homes with frontage along Pepper Drive and 

Cedarwood Court. 


As shown in Figures 5.7-4 and 5.7-6, sensitive receptors near the site include the Shelter Creek 

Condominiums, single-family homes, and the San Bruno Chinese Church along Courtland Drive; 

apartment buildings at 2001 Jenevein Avenue and 2081 Whitman Way (Park Plaza Apartments); and 

the Peninsula High School along Piedmont Avenue. 3 The nearest sensitive receptors are the Shelter 

Creek Condominiums, the Park Plaza Apartments, and single-family residences along Courtland 

Drive, all of which are located 10 feet from the project site. The church is located approximately 30 feet 

from the San Bruno South staging area and 190 feet from the construction zone. In addition to 

worship services on Sundays, the church holds educational classes on Wednesdays, Fridays, and 

Saturdays during daytime hours from late August to early June. The school is located approximately 

150 feet from the San Bruno South staging area and 1,000 feet from the construction zone and operates 

from 8:20 a.m. until 2:44 p.m. from late August to early June. The school’s athletic fields are used daily 

by the high school and the community. Access routes to the site would extend past sensitive 

residential receptors, including single-family homes and multi-family residential properties. 

Millbrae Site 

As shown in Figures 5.7-5 and 5.7-6, sensitive receptors near the site include single-family homes 

along Ridgewood Drive, Banbury Lane, Hacienda Way, Bertocchi Lane, Helen Drive, Millwood 

Drive, Barcelona Drive, and Magnolia Avenue; Meadows Elementary School at 1101 Helen Drive; 

the Glen Oaks and Millbrae Montessori Schools at 797 Santa Margarita Avenue; Capuchino High 

School at 1501 Magnolia Avenue; and the Green Hills Country Club. The nearest sensitive 

receptors are the single-family residences at 1094 and 1100 Ridgewood Drive, both of which are 

located 10 feet from the project site. Meadows Elementary School is located approximately 

3 Other uses at the Peninsula High School, in addition to the continuation high school, include Crayon College (daycare), 

Central Peninsula Church, and San Bruno Community Services sports activities on the athletic fields. The analyses 

applied to the Peninsula High School building and athletic fields receptors are inclusive of these uses. 




CRESTMOOR DR 

WHITECLIFF WAY 

CHARLESTON 

TRENTON DR 

AVE 

CEDARWOOD CT 

HICKORY AVE 

JUNIPER AVE 


HOLLY AVE 

CHESTNUT AVE 

SYCAMORE AVE 

CHERRY AVE 

PEPPER DR 

I280 

HAMILTON 

KINGSTON AVE 

AVE 

Bldg 1 SAPL3-1 

Bldg 2 

!( 

PARK AV E 



MAPLE AVE 

CEDAR AVE 

Bldg 3 

PRINCETON 

DR 

Shelter Creek 

Condominiums 

Bldg 4 

!( 

SAPL3-2 

REDWOODAVE 

HAWTHORNE AVE 

MADISON AVE 

WHITMAN WAY 


!( 

SAPL2-1 

0 1,000 

Feet 

Millbrae 

TERRACE DR 

REDW OOD WAY 

ROBIN LN 

BROOKSIDE LN 

RIDGE WO OD DR 

BAYVIEW CT 

LOMITA AVE 

MILLBRAE SITE 

BAYVIEW AVE 

F AIRVIE W PL 


BERTOCCHI LN 

SSBPL-2 

!( 

B O NITA 

AVE 

GUADALUP E 

AVE 

JUANITA AVE 

C APUCHINO DR 

PA RK BLVD 

BARCELONA DR 

Capuchino 

High School 

!( 

SSBPL-3 

!( 

SSBPL-4 

PARAMOUNT DR 

QUEEN ANNE CT 

SEVILLE CT 


MILLWOOD DR 

HEATH ER 

PL 

LUDEMAN LN 


BROADWAY 

MAGNOLIA A VE 

GREEN HILLS DR 

JEFFERSON CT 


SAN AN SELMO AVE 

CENTER ST 

FERNWOOD DR 

GLENWOOD DR 

vsa U:\GIS\SFPUC_Peninsula_Pipeline\Projects\EIR\ERO_DEIR\Fig5_7_6_noise_dewatering_locs.mxd 2/7/2013 10:37:05 AM 

HELEN DR 

0 1,000 

Feet 

Source: SFPUC 2011; ESRI aerial imagery 2013. 

MOSSWOOD LN 

!( 

BANBURY LN 

SSBPL-1 

24-Hour Dewatering Locations 

SAPL2-1 

SAPL3-1 

& SAPL3-2 

Project Site 

Whitman Way 



!( 24-Hour Dewatering Locations 

LARKSPUR DR 

SSBPL-1 

SSBPL-2 

SSBPL-3 

SSBPL-4 

Helen Drive and Banbury Lane 

$ 

GERALDINE DR 

5th green on the Green Hills Country Club 

Millwood Drive and Barcelona Drive 

Millwood Drive and Magnolia Avenue 

(at the SFPUC’s Capuchino Valve Lot) 

HELEN DR 

MICHAEL LN 

HENRY PL 

LAUREL AVE 

ANITA DR 

D EXTER PL 

RICHMOND DR 

ROBERT PL 

PALM AVE 

POPLAR AVE 

24-HOUR DEWATERING LOCATIONS 




FIGURE 5.7-6


5.7 Noise 

1,250 feet from the Millbrae site staging area and 1,130 feet from the construction zone, and operates 

from 8:30 a.m. until 2:45 p.m. from late August to early June. The Millbrae Montessori School and the 

Glen Oaks Montessori School buildings are located approximately 615 feet from the Millbrae site 

staging area and 750 feet from the construction zone, and operate from 7:30 a.m. until 6 p.m. nearly 

year round. Portions of the Millbrae site staging area and construction zone are located on the Green 

Hills Country Club golf course, which typically operates year round during daylight hours. The 

access routes would extend past sensitive residential receptors, including single-family homes along 

Larkspur Drive, Ridgewood Drive, Lomita Avenue, Bertocchi Lane, and Capuchino Drive. 


Sensitive receptors near the common staging area at the Baden Valve Lot include single-family homes 

within approximately 30 feet of the western boundary of the staging area (SF Planning, 2008). 



There are no federal noise regulations that apply directly to the project. However, federal 

agencies have developed guidance related to noise and vibration that is relevant to the project. 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) establishes that for indoor environments, 

the highest noise level identified for 100 percent speech intelligibility is 45 dBA. For outdoor 

environments, the highest noise level that permits normal conversation at a distance of 2 meters 

with 95 percent sentence intelligibility is 66 dBA (U.S. EPA, 1974). 

5.7.2.2 State 

The California Vehicle Code (Section 27204) limits the noise generated by all on-road trucks 

manufactured since 1987 to 80 dBA when measured at 50 feet from the line of travel for any 

operating condition. 

The California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA) requires backup 

warning alarms that activate immediately upon reverse movement on all vehicles used to haul 

dirt with a capacity of 2.5 cubic yards or more (Title 8, California Code of Regulations). Backup 

alarms must be audible above the surrounding ambient noise level at a distance of 200 feet. 

The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has published a guidance manual to evaluate 

the potential vibration impacts from construction activities (Caltrans, 2004). These guidelines are 

derived from several sources over decades of research and field studies. Table 5.7-6 summarizes the 

Caltrans guidelines applicable to structures; the criteria are given in maximum allowable PPV in the 

vertical direction. Table 5.7-7 summarizes the Caltrans guidelines applicable to human disturbance. 

5.7.2.3 Local 

At the local level, noise is addressed through implementation of General Plan policies, including noise 

and land use compatibility guidelines, and through enforcement of noise ordinances. General Plan 




5.7 Noise 

Table 5.7-6 

Caltrans Guidelines for Vibration Damage Potential Threshold Criteria 

Maximum PPV 

(inches/sec) 

Structure and Condition 

Transient 

Continuous/ 

Intermittent 

Ruins, ancient monuments, extremely fragile historical 

structures 

0.12 0.08 

Fragile buildings 0.2 0.1 

Historic and some old buildings 0.5 0.25 

Older residential structures 0.5 0.3 

New residential structures 1.0 0.5 

Modern industrial/commercial buildings 2.0 0.5 


Notes: 

Transient sources create a single isolated vibration event, such as blasting or drop balls. Continuous/Intermittent 

sources include impact pile drivers, pogo-stick compactors, crack-and-seat equipment, vibratory pile drivers, and 

vibratory compaction equipment. 

PPV = peak particle velocity 

Table 5.7-7 

Caltrans Guidelines for Vibration Annoyance Potential Criteria 

Maximum PPV 

(inches/sec) 

Human Response 

Transient 

Continuous/ 

Intermittent 

Barely perceptible 0.04 0.01 

Distinctly perceptible 0.25 0.04 

Strongly perceptible 0.9 0.10 

Severe 2.0 0.4 


Notes: 

Transient sources create a single isolated vibration event, such as blasting or drop balls. Continuous/Intermittent 

sources include impact pile drivers, pogo-stick compactors, crack-and-seat equipment, vibratory pile drivers, and 

vibratory compaction equipment. 





5.7 Noise 

policies provide guidelines for determining whether a noise environment is appropriate for a 

proposed or planned land use. Noise ordinances regulate sources such as mechanical equipment and 

amplified sounds as well as prescribe hours of heavy equipment operation such as for construction. 

The impact assessment presented below uses local ordinance noise limits to determine the 

significance of project noise impacts. 

The following local noise standards are indicated for their applicability or use as guidance to 

determine significance under CEQA. For significance thresholds, the CEQA Guidelines, 

Appendix G, take into account the local general plan and noise ordinance standards. Therefore, 

for this analysis, a noise impact could be considered significant if project-related noise levels 

exceed the standards established in local noise ordinances. 

The proposed project construction zones are located on the SFPUC right-of-way within the Town 

of Colma, unincorporated San Mateo County, and cities of South San Francisco, San Bruno, and 

Millbrae. Each jurisdiction has developed noise ordinances to regulate noise exposure at noisesensitive 

land uses, which are summarized below. 


The San Mateo County Ordinance Code (San Mateo County, 1990) exempts permitted 

construction activities on weekdays during the daytime hours of 7 a.m. to 6 p.m., and on 

Saturdays during the daytime hours of 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. On Sundays, holidays, and outside of 

these hours, construction work is subject to the noise limits shown in Table 5.7-8 for single and 

multi-family residential, schools, churches, and public libraries. There are no published limits for 

commercial or outdoor recreational land uses. The ordinance also states that whenever, for the 

good of the public, a government agency, public utility, or private utility determines a project 

must be done before 7:00 a.m., or after 6:00 p.m., or on weekends, and so states in its contract, 

change order(s), or bid documents, said work shall be exempted from this chapter. 

Table 5.7-8 

San Mateo County Exterior Noise Standards (dBA) 1 

Category 

Maximum Number of 

Minutes in any 1-Hour 

Period (dBA) 2,3 

Daytime Hours 

(7 a.m. to 10 p.m.) 

(dBA) 

Nighttime Hours 

(10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) 

(dBA) 

1 30 55 50 

2 15 60 55 

3 5 65 60 

4 1 70 65 

5 0 75 70 

Source: San Mateo County, 1990. 

Notes: 

1 These standards apply to single or multi-family residential, schools, hospitals, churches, and public libraries. 

2 In the event the measured background noise level exceeds the applicable noise level standard in any category above, 

the applicable standard shall be adjusted in 5-dBA increments so as to encompass the background noise level. 

3 Each of the noise level standards specified above shall be reduced by 5 dBA for simple tone noises, consisting 

primarily of speech or music, or for recurring or intermittent impulsive noises. 

dBA = A-weighted decibels 




5.7 Noise 

Town of Colma 

The Town of Colma Municipal Code states that permitted construction activities within any 

residential zone, including Planned Developments that include residential uses, or within a 

radius of 500 feet therefrom, are allowed on weekdays during the daytime hours of 7 a.m. to 

8 p.m., and on weekends and holidays during the daytime hours of 10 a.m. to 6 p.m., if each piece 

of construction equipment is limited to a noise level of 85 dBA at a distance of 25 feet (Town of 

Colma, 2010). Outside of these hours, permitted construction activities are allowed if each piece 

of construction equipment is limited to a noise level of 60 dBA at a distance of 25 feet. The code 

also states that construction hours for projects occurring outside of residential zoning districts 

will be determined by the building official on a case-by-case basis. 


The City of South San Francisco Municipal Code states that permitted construction activities are 

allowed weekdays during the daytime hours of 8 a.m. to 8 p.m.; on Saturdays during the daytime 

hours of 9 a.m. to 8 p.m.; and on Sundays and holidays during the daytime hours of 10 a.m. to 

6 p.m., if the two following requirements are met: (1) each piece of construction equipment is 

limited to a noise level of 90 dBA at a distance of 25 feet; and (2) the noise level at any point 

outside the project boundary is limited to 90 dBA. Outside of these hours, noise from 

construction activities is limited to 60 dBA during daytime hours (7 a.m. to 10 p.m.) and 50 dBA 

during nighttime hours (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) at single-family residential receptors; and 60 dBA 

during daytime hours (7 a.m. to 10 p.m.) and 55 dBA during nighttime hours (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) 

at multi-family residential receptors (City of South San Francisco, 1990). Utility and street repair 

work is exempt from the noise ordinance (Section 8.32.050 [c]) (Kalkin, 2013). 


The City of San Bruno Municipal Code limits noise from construction activities to 85 dBA at a 

distance of 100 feet during the daytime hours of 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. During the nighttime hours of 

10 p.m. to 7 a.m., noise from construction activities is limited to 60 dBA at a distance of 100 feet 

(City of San Bruno, 1998). 


The City of Millbrae Municipal Code limits construction activities to the daytime hours as 

follows: 7:30 a.m. to 7 p.m. Monday through Friday; 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Saturdays; and 9 a.m. to 

6 p.m. on Sundays and holidays (City of Millbrae, 2011). The municipal code does not contain 

specific noise limits for construction during these hours. 




impacts related to noise and vibration but generally considers that implementation of the 

proposed project would have a significant impact on noise and vibration if it would: 

 

Result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project 

vicinity above levels existing without the project; 




5.7 Noise 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in 

the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies; 

Result in exposure of persons to generation of excessive groundborne vibration or 

groundborne noise levels; 

Result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity 

above levels existing without the project; 

For a project located within an airport land use plan area, or, where such a plan has not been 

adopted, in an area within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, expose people 

residing or working in the area to excessive noise levels; 

For a project located in the vicinity of a private airstrip, expose people residing or working in 

the project area to excessive noise levels; or 

Be substantially affected by existing noise levels. 


Due to the nature of the proposed project, there would be no project impacts related to the 

following significance criteria. Therefore, an impact discussion is not provided for these topics for 

the reasons described below. 

PPSU project operations, and in certain cases project construction, would have no impacts related 

to the following significance criteria: 

 

 

Result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards 

established in the local general plan or noise ordinance. After completion of construction 

activities, operation and maintenance of the proposed project would not introduce new 

sources of noise. Future operations and maintenance would be the same as existing 

operations and maintenance activities and would continue to entail yearly visual inspections. 

Therefore, this significance criterion is not applicable to project operations, but is discussed 

below under Impact NO-3 as it applies to project construction activities. 

Result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or 

groundborne noise levels. Groundborne noise occurs when groundborne vibration causes the 

ground surface and structures to radiate audible acoustic energy. Groundborne noise is not a 

concern for the PPSU project because the airborne noise from the equipment would dominate 

any groundborne noise. After completion of construction activities, operation and maintenance 

of San Andreas Pipeline 2 (SAPL2), San Andreas Pipeline 3 (SAPL3), and Sunset Supply Branch 

Pipeline (SSBPL) would not introduce new sources of noise or vibration. Future operations and 

maintenance would be the same as existing operations and maintenance activities, and would 

continue to entail yearly visual inspections. No new sources of noise or vibration would be 

introduced during operations; therefore, project operations would not generate excessive 

groundborne noise or vibration. As a result, this significance criterion, as it relates to 

groundborne noise levels, is not applicable to project construction or operations. Additionally, 

this criterion is not applicable to operations-related groundborne vibration levels and is 

discussed below under Impact NO-4 only as it applies to project construction activities. 

Both PPSU project construction and operations would have no impacts related to the following 

significance criteria: 




5.7 Noise 

 

 

 

 

Result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels. As described above, 

project operations would not introduce new sources of noise or vibration. Therefore, this 

significance criterion related to a permanent increase in ambient noise levels is not applicable 

to the proposed project and is not considered further in this analysis. 

Be located within 2 miles of a public airport or within an airport land use plan area and expose 

people to excessive noise levels. The closest public airport is San Francisco International Airport 

(SFO), which is located approximately 1 mile from the Millbrae site (the closest project site to 

SFO) and approximately 4 miles from the Colma site (the farthest site from SFO) (see Figure 3-1 in 

Chapter 3, Project Description). However, the project as proposed would not introduce any new 

land uses where people would reside or work within an airport land use plan area. No impact to 

temporary construction workers would result, because the project sites are outside of the SFO 

CNEL 65-dBA contour. Additionally, neither construction nor operation of the proposed project 

would be adversely affected by existing noise levels. Therefore, this significance criterion is not 

applicable to the proposed project and is not analyzed further. 

Be located in the vicinity of a private airstrip and expose people to excessive noise levels. There 

are no private airstrips in the project vicinity. The closest private airstrips are in San Francisco and 

in San Carlos, located approximately 7.5 miles north and 11 miles south of the nearest PPSU 

project site, respectively. Therefore, the PPSU project would not result in the exposure of workers 

to excessive airport-related noise levels. The significance criterion related to noise levels near 

private airstrips is not applicable to the PPSU project and no further analysis is provided. 

Be substantially affected by existing noise levels. Since the PPSU project is not a noisesensitive 

land use, this significance criterion related to whether the project would be 

substantially affected by existing noise levels is not applicable and is not analyzed further. 

The noise impact assessment evaluates short-term (temporary) impacts associated with 

construction of project facilities. The majority of construction activities would occur during 

daytime hours, except for limited nighttime construction at the San Bruno North site and limited 

nighttime pipeline dewatering activities. For construction noise, the potential for impacts is 

assessed by considering several factors, including the proximity of construction-related noise 

sources to sensitive receptors, typical noise levels generated by construction equipment, the 

potential for construction noise levels to interfere with activities, the duration that sensitive 

receptors would be affected, and whether proposed activities would occur outside the 

construction time limits established in local noise ordinances. 

To address the CEQA significance criterion regarding “substantial temporary or periodic noise 

increases in ambient noise levels” for construction noise, a “substantial” noise increase is defined as 

an increase in noise to a level that causes interference with land use activities at nearby sensitive 

receptors. One indicator that construction noise could interfere with daytime (7 a.m. to 10 p.m.) 

activities is speech interference. An additional indicator that nighttime pipeline dewatering noise 

could interfere with nighttime (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) activities would be sleep interference. 

This analysis uses the following criteria to define potential “substantial” noise impacts: 

 

Speech Interference. Speech interference is an indicator of impact on typical daytime and 

evening activities. A speech interference threshold, in the context of impact duration and 

time of day, is used to identify a substantial increase in noise from temporary construction 

activities. Noise peaks generated by construction equipment could result in speech 

interference in adjacent buildings if the noise level at the interior of the building exceeds 45 to 




5.7 Noise 

60 dBA. The range is due to variables such as frequency content, listener hearing ability, and 

distance between speakers. A typical building can reduce noise levels by 25 dBA with the 

windows closed (U.S. EPA, 1974). This noise reduction could be maintained only on a 

temporary basis in some cases, since it assumes that windows must remain closed at all 

times. Assuming a 25-dBA reduction with the windows closed, an exterior noise level of 

70 dBA Leq at sensitive receptors would maintain an acceptable interior noise environment of 

45 dBA. With windows open, interior noise levels (due to a 70-dBA Leq exterior noise level) 

would increase to 55 dBA, which would still provide acceptable interior noise levels but 

could cause occasional speech interference effects. It should be noted that such noise levels 

would typically be sporadic rather than continuous in nature, because different types of 

construction equipment would be used throughout the construction process. The duration of 

exposure at any given receptor is then considered to determine the impact’s significance. 

Daytime exposure to noise from construction activities above these thresholds for 2 weeks or 

less is considered to be less than significant. For this analysis, a significant noise impact 

would occur if exterior noise levels remained above the 70-dBA Leq speech interference 

threshold for longer than 2 weeks. 

For outdoor land uses, noise levels above 66 dBA 4 Leq are considered to be significant, 

because there are no building attenuation effects, and speech interference can therefore occur 

at lower noise levels. However, because visitors to the cemetery and users of playgrounds, 

athletic fields, and golf courses are transitory users and only use these outdoor areas for a 

limited time, they would be exposed to elevated noise levels for a short period of time. This 

exposure is considered to be less than significant. On the other hand, some outdoor activities 

in the project vicinity, such as burial services at the cemetery, are considered to be inherently 

sensitive uses despite the limited duration of exposure to elevated noise levels; therefore, 

these impacts would be considered to be significant. 

 

Sleep Interference. Based on available sleep criteria data, an interior nighttime level of 

35 dBA is considered acceptable (U.S. EPA, 1974). Assuming a 25-dBA reduction with the 

windows closed, an exterior noise level of 60 dBA Leq at sensitive receptors would maintain 

an acceptable interior noise environment of 35 dBA. Given the local climate conditions (cool 

evenings) and expected short duration of dewatering activities, it is reasonable to anticipate 

that windows would be closed during the nighttime hours; therefore, the exterior sleep 

interference threshold of 60 dBA Leq is applied for this analysis. 

This noise impact assessment estimates noise levels associated with proposed project 

construction. It also compares daytime construction noise levels at sensitive receptors with the 

speech interference threshold; and nighttime construction and pipeline dewatering noise levels at 

sensitive receptors with the sleep interference threshold. 

To address the CEQA significance criterion regarding “noise levels in excess of standards established 

in the local noise ordinance,” this Environmental Impact Report considers the standards in San Mateo 

County, Town of Colma, and cities of South San Francisco, San Bruno, and Millbrae Noise 

Ordinances. For this analysis, a noise impact could be considered significant if project-related noise 

levels exceeded the established construction hours or noise level standards of these jurisdictions. 

4 As noted previously, for outdoor environments, the highest noise level that permits normal conversation at a distance 

of 2 meters with 95 percent sentence intelligibility is 66 dBA (U.S. EPA, 1974). 




5.7 Noise 

Project-related excavation and construction activities can result in groundborne vibration that could 

disturb nearby sensitive receptors, cause damage to buildings and structures, or cause damage to 

buried facilities such as pipelines. This assessment evaluates whether project-related construction 

activities would result in “excessive groundborne vibration” based on the thresholds of significance 

given below. CEQA significance thresholds for vibration are based on guidelines issued by 

Caltrans, which provide guidance for general construction projects as well as transportation 

projects (Caltrans, 2004); the applicable city ordinances do not address groundborne vibration. 

 

 

 

Damage Potential Thresholds for Structures (0.3~0.5 in/sec PPV). To assess the potential for 

construction-related vibration to cause threshold 5 damage to nearby structures, this analysis 

applies a 0.3 in/sec PPV threshold for continuous vibration sources (impact and vibratory pile 

drivers, vibratory compactors/rollers) and a 0.5 in/sec PPV threshold for transient vibration 

sources (blasting, ball drop). These thresholds are based on the Caltrans “older residential 

building” category 6 (Caltrans, 2004). 

Nighttime Annoyance Potential Thresholds (0.01~0.04 in/sec PPV). To assess the potential 

for construction-related vibration to cause disturbance or annoyance to residences, this 

analysis applies a 0.01 in/sec PPV threshold for continuous vibration sources (impact and 

vibratory pile drivers, vibratory compactors/rollers), and a 0.04 in/sec PPV threshold for 

transient vibration sources (blasting, ball drop) during the nighttime hours (10 p.m. to 

7 a.m.). These thresholds are based on the Caltrans “barely perceptible” category (Caltrans, 

2004). Consideration is given to the potentially affected use in determining significance. 

Excessive vibration at a residence would be a significant impact, whereas excessive vibration 

at an outdoor area serving as a transition area or with physical activity would not be 

considered significant. For this analysis, a significant vibration impact would occur if 

vibration levels exceeded the nighttime annoyance thresholds during nighttime hours. 

Damage Potential Threshold for Buried Facilities (4.0 in/sec PPV). 7 To assess the potential 

for construction-related vibration to cause damage to buried facilities such as pipelines, this 

analysis applies a 4.0 in/sec PPV damage threshold. 

The impact analysis presented below estimates vibration levels at nearby structures and sensitive 

receptors based on the vibration source and setback distance. The estimated vibration levels are 

then compared to the thresholds described above to determine the potential for significant 

vibration impacts to occur. 

The noise and vibration significance thresholds are summarized in Table 5.7-9. 

5 For the purpose of this analysis, threshold damage is defined as the level of vibration above which cosmetic damage to 

structures could occur. This criterion provides a conservative approach to assessing the potential for structural damage, 

which would occur at higher vibration levels than the threshold for cosmetic damage. 

6 As many of the residences near the PPSU construction zones were constructed in the early 1960s and have stucco 

facades at the exterior, the more conservative “older residential building” category is used. There are no historic, nonengineered 

structures adjacent to the PPSU construction zones; therefore, the “historic and some old buildings” 

category is not applicable to this project. 

7 Based on studies by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), vibration measured 

at ground level is much greater than the vibration measured at the buried pipelines. As a result, surface vibration 

measurements overestimate the vibration levels present at buried utilities. At least one major utility has established a criterion 

of 4.0 inch/sec PPV over its fiber-optic cables. Furthermore, a restrained monolithic concrete block (such as a pipeline encased 

in concrete) can experience 10.0 inch/sec PPV before cracking occurs (AASHTO, 2009). Therefore, buried utilities are more 

resistant to damage than even the strongest building structures and more relaxed criteria are appropriate. 




5.7 Noise 

Table 5.7-9 

Summary of Noise and Vibration Significance Thresholds 

Significance 

Threshold Noise Vibration 

Speech Interference 70 dBA Leq at exterior of sensitive receptors 

66 dBA Leq at exterior use areas 

Sleep Interference 60 dBA Leq at exterior of sensitive receptors NA 


Noise Ordinance 

Town of Colma 


City of South San 

Francisco Noise 

Ordinance 





Monday-Friday (7 a.m. to 6 p.m.), Saturdays (9 a.m. to 5 p.m.): no limit on 

construction noise 

Outside of these hours: no limit on construction noise for outdoor 

recreational areas 

Within residential zones, including Planned Developments that include 

residential uses, or within a radius of 500 feet therefrom: Monday-Friday 

(7 a.m. to 8 p.m.), Weekends/Holidays (10 a.m. to 6 p.m.); each piece of 

equipment limited to 85 dBA at 25 feet 

Outside of these hours: each piece of equipment limited to 60 dBA at 25 feet 

Construction hours within all nonresidential zoning districts are assigned on 

a project-by-project basis by the Building Official 

Monday-Friday (8 a.m. to 8 p.m.), Saturdays (9 a.m. to 8 p.m.), Sundays/Holidays 

(10 a.m. to 6 p.m.): each piece of equipment limited to 90 dBA at 25 feet; total 

construction noise at project boundary is limited to 90 dBA 

Outside of these hours: total construction noise at single-family residential 

receptors is 60 dBA during daytime hours (7 a.m. to 10 p.m.) and 50 dBA 

during nighttime hours (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.); total construction noise at multifamily 

residential receptors is 60 dBA during daytime hours (7 a.m. to 

10 p.m.) and 55 dBA during nighttime hours (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) 

Utility and street repair work is exempt from ordinance 

Daytime hours (7 a.m. to 10 p.m.): noise from construction activities limited 

to 85 dBA at 100 feet 

Nighttime hours (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.): noise from construction activities 

limited to 60 dBA at 100 feet 

Monday-Friday (7:30 a.m. to 7 p.m.), Saturdays (8 a.m. to 6 p.m.), 

Sundays/Holidays (9 a.m. to 6 p.m.): no limit on construction noise 

Outside of these hours: construction is not permitted 

Potential Damage NA 0.3 inch/sec PPV for 

continuous sources 

0.5 inch/sec PPV for 

transient sources 

Nighttime 

Annoyance 

Potential Damage to 

Buried Facilities 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 


continuous sources 


transient sources 

4.0 inch/sec PPV 

Source: Caltrans, 2004; City of Millbrae, 2011; City of San Bruno, 1998; City of South San Francisco, 1990; San Mateo County, 1990; Town of 

Colma, 2010; U.S. EPA, 1974. 

Notes: 

For the purposes of this analysis, exceedances of the speech interference threshold of 2 weeks or less are considered less than significant. 

Exceedances of this threshold for longer than 2 weeks, or exceedances of the damage potential thresholds for any duration are considered 

significant. 


NA = Not Applicable 





5.7 Noise 


The proposed project’s noise and vibration impacts and the resulting significance determinations 

are summarized in Table 5.7-10. 

Table 5.7-10 

Summary of Impacts – Noise and Vibration 


Impacts 

Colma 

South 




Bruno 

North 


Bruno 

South 

Millbrae 

Common 

Staging 

Area 

Impact NO-1: Daytime construction 

activities could result in substantial 

temporary increases in ambient 

daytime noise levels that could 

interfere with nearby land uses. 

Impact NO-2: Nighttime construction 

and dewatering activities could result 

in substantial temporary increases in 

ambient nighttime noise levels that 

could interfere with nearby land uses. 

Impact NO-3: Construction activities 

could result in exposure of persons to 

or generation of noise levels in excess 

of standards established in the local 

general plan or noise ordinance. 

Impact NO-4: Construction activities 

could result in exposure of persons or 

structures to generation of excessive 

groundborne vibration 

Impact C-NO: Construction of the 

proposed project could result in a 


contribution to cumulative noise and 

vibration impacts. 

LSM SUM SUM SUM SUM LS 

NI NI SUM LSM LSM NI 

LSM NI SUM NI SUM LSM 

LS LSM SUM LSM LSM LS 

LSM LS NI NI LS LS 

Notes: 


LS = Less-than-Significant Impact, no mitigation required 






5.7 Noise 


Impact NO-1: Daytime construction activities could result in substantial temporary 

increases in ambient daytime noise levels that could interfere with nearby land uses. 

(Significant and Unavoidable with Mitigation) 

Project-related construction activities would result in temporary noise increases at sensitive 

receptors located adjacent to or near the project sites. Construction noise levels would vary at any 

given receptor depending on the construction activity, equipment type, duration of use, distance 

between the source and receptor, and the presence or absence of barriers between the noise 

source and the receptor. 

For construction noise, a “substantial” noise impact is defined as short-term interference with 

activities during daytime hours. One indicator that construction noise could interfere with 

daytime activities would be speech interference. A threshold of 70 dBA Leq at the exterior wall of 

a structure (66 dBA Leq for outdoor receptors) is applied for determining the significance of noise 

impacts associated with construction during daytime hours (7 a.m. to 10 p.m.). 

As described in Section 3.8.9, Construction Schedule and Equipment, construction activities 

would occur primarily during weekdays from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. To meet the construction schedule, 

weekend work may be required on a limited basis; weekend construction hours would be as 

described for weekdays. Nighttime construction would be limited to the San Bruno North site 

and nighttime dewatering activities, which would be required at up to seven locations, as 

analyzed under Impact NO-2. Overall project construction is planned to begin in October 2014 

and end in September 2015. 

Construction Equipment Noise 

The types of construction equipment likely to be used for the proposed project are listed in 

Table 3-6 in Chapter 3, Project Description. Table 5.7-11 shows typical maximum noise levels 

generated by similar equipment at 50 feet as well as the acoustical use factor which accounts for 

the fraction of time that the equipment is typically in use over a given period. The reference Leq at 

50 feet is calculated using the following equation (FTA, 2006): 

Leq = Lmax + 10 × log(use factor) 

Construction equipment typically generates maximum noise levels ranging from 66 to 95 dBA 

Lmax at a distance of 50 feet from the source. The rate of geometric attenuation is 6 dBA for every 

doubling of distance from a point source. 

In order to estimate project-related construction noise levels at receptor locations, the noise levels 

were grouped by construction activity for each receptor and the minimum distances between 

sensitive receptors and project components were determined. These levels reflect the highest 

noise levels that would occur at the closest sensitive receptors (representing the maximum 

impact) but such levels would only occur when the equipment was operating at the closest 

location. Furthermore, these calculations do not include attenuation provided by intervening 

structures, elevation changes, existing solid fencing, or other elements. 




5.7 Noise 

Table 5.7-11 

Construction Equipment Reference Noise Levels 

Equipment 

Reference 

Lmax at 50 feet Usage Factor 

Reference Leq 

at 50 feet 

With 

Controls 1 

Leq at 50 feet 

with 

Controls 

Backhoe 78 40 74 -3 71 

Brush Chipper 80 40 76 0 76 

Cement Drum Mixer 80 50 77 -5 72 

Cement Mixer Truck 79 40 75 -4 71 

Chain Saw 85 50 82 0 82 

Compactor 83 20 76 0 76 

Crane 81 16 73 -6 67 

Dozer 82 40 78 -7 71 

Dump Truck 76 40 72 -1 71 

Flatbed Truck 74 40 70 0 70 

Forklift 66 40 62 0 62 

Generator, 25 kVA 81 100 81 -6 75 

Grader 85 40 81 -10 71 

Haul Truck 76 40 72 -1 71 

Hoe Ram 90 20 83 0 83 

Loader 79 40 75 -4 71 

Pickup Truck 74 40 70 0 70 

Pump, Concrete 81 20 74 -6 68 

Pump, Water 81 50 78 -6 72 

Skid Loader 79 40 75 -4 71 

Track Loader 85 40 81 -5 76 

Truck 80 40 76 -5 71 

Vacuum Street Sweeper 82 10 72 0 72 

Vibratory Pile Driver 95 20 88 -10 78 

Water Truck 74 40 70 0 70 

Welder, Diesel 74 40 70 0 70 

Whole Tree Chipper 87 40 83 -4 79 

Sources: U.S. EPA, 1971; FHWA, 2006; Health and Safety Laboratory, 2008. 

1 

Estimated levels can be obtained by selecting quieter procedures or equipment and implementing noise control features that do not 

require major redesign or high cost (e.g., improved mufflers, equipment redesign, and use of silencers, shields, shrouds, ducts, and 

engine enclosures). These controls are required as part of Mitigation Measure M-NO-1: Prepare and Implement Administrative and 

Source Controls. 

Notes: 


Lmax = maximum A-weighted sound level 




5.7 Noise 

Preceding the pipeline replacement at the South San Francisco and Millbrae sites, tree removal 

activities would be required, occurring over approximately 2 weeks at the South San Francisco 

site and 1.5 months at the Millbrae site. 

Additionally, as described in Section 3.8.9, Construction Schedule and Equipment, limited 

24-hour dewatering activities (from 1 day up to 2 weeks) would occur at manholes, blow-outs, or 

valves along the three project pipelines during pipeline shutdown and start-up phases. Although 

the majority of dewatering activities would be via gravity and would not require pumping, seven 

of the dewatering locations near the San Bruno South and Millbrae sites would require pumping, 

as shown in Figure 5.7-6. At the other dewatering locations, pumping is not required and no 

noise or groundborne vibration generating equipment would be used. Therefore, these locations 

are not further considered in this analysis. 

Pumping for dewatering would be required at the following locations. For SAPL3, the two 

locations where dewatering pumping would be required are on Shelter Creek Lane adjacent to 

the Shelter Creek Condominiums (SAPL3-1), and farther south near the Shelter Creek 

Condominiums driveway on Shelter Creek Lane (SAPL3-2). For SAPL2, the single location where 

pumping would be required for dewatering is within the project construction zone on Whitman 

Way by Park Plaza Apartments (SAPL2-1). For SSBPL, the four locations in Millbrae where 

pumping would be required are as follows: near the intersection of Helen Drive and Banbury 

Lane (SSBPL-1); near the fifth green of the Green Hills Country Club (SSBPL-2); at Millwood 

Drive and Barcelona Drive (SSBPL-3); and at Millwood Drive and Magnolia Avenue, at the 

SFPUC’s Capuchino Valve Lot (SSBPL-4). 

For dewatering, a customized pump would be used that implements manufacturer-designed 

noise controls. This pump would be similar to the Godwin NC150, 8 which is rated by the 

manufacturer to generate 69 dBA at a distance of 30 feet from the pump (Godwin Pumps of 

America, 2005). The pump would be parked on the street at the curb near the manhole, blow-out, 

or valve. The 70-dBA Leq speech interference threshold would be met at a distance of 26 feet or 

greater from the pump. 

Pipeline replacement would be performed using open-trench construction techniques at all 

project sites, with the exception of San Bruno North. Additionally, at the South San Francisco 

site, the jack-and-bore construction technique would also be used to replace the pipeline 

beneath Westborough Boulevard. At the San Bruno North site, the existing pipeline would be 

stabilized within the tunnel through which it currently extends by the addition of structural 

supports. At the Colma site, replacement of the pipeline would occur over approximately 

2 months; and at the South San Francisco site, replacement would occur over approximately 

2.5 months. At the San Bruno North site, the pipeline stabilization would occur over 

approximately 1 month. The pipeline replacement at the San Bruno South site would occur 

over approximately 9 months. At the Millbrae site, replacement of the pipeline would occur 

over approximately 3 months. 

8 The Godwin NC150 pump is designed with an acoustically designed silencing enclosure. The pump is intended for use 

where pumping is required, but engine and other noise must be kept to a minimum. 




5.7 Noise 

The noisiest pieces of construction equipment proposed for each type of construction activity are 

as follows: tree removal (chain saw, track loader, and whole tree chipper); pipeline dewatering 

(dewatering pump); mobilization (haul truck); and excavation and restoration (grader, generator, 

and vibratory pile driver). Haul trucks must have back-up alarms that are audible above the 

surrounding ambient noise level at a distance of 200 feet. The alarms are often designed to be 

10 to 15 dBA higher than the worst-case environment. As the proposed equipment on this 

project varies from 62 to 88 dBA at 50 feet, the alarms would typically be designed to be as loud 

as 103 dBA at 50 feet. 

An impact analysis for each site and the common staging area is provided below. Table 5.7-12 

summarizes the impacts at the closest sensitive receptors. Descriptions of the impact 

significance determination for each receptor follow the table. For additional details regarding 

estimates of the daytime construction-related noise levels at the closest sensitive receptors, 

refer to Tables D-3.1 through D-3.25 in Appendix D-3. 9 As described in the impact analysis, 

locations where it is not feasible to achieve the performance standards identified in Mitigation 

Measure M-NO-1: Prepare and Implement Administrative and Source Controls are shown as 

“significant and unavoidable with mitigation” in Table 5.7-12. 

Colma Site (Less than Significant with Mitigation) 

Home Sweet Home Assisted Living Facility: As indicated in Table D-3.1 in Appendix D-3, noise 

resulting from construction activities would not exceed the 70-dBA Leq speech interference 

threshold at the closest residential receptor during any of the construction phases. When 

compared to the average daytime ambient noise levels, noise from construction-related activities 

would typically be equivalent to the average daytime level. Therefore, the impact from noise 

levels would be less than significant. 

Cypress Lawn Memorial Cemetery: As indicated in Table D-3.2, construction noise would 

exceed the 66-dBA Leq speech interference threshold by 1 to 8 dBA at the Cypress Lawn Memorial 

Cemetery during the excavation and restoration phase. When compared to the average daytime 

ambient noise levels, construction-related noise levels could occasionally exceed the average 

ambient levels by several dB at the cemetery’s outdoor areas closest to the project staging/spoils 

area. Visitors to the cemetery are considered transient users, and would only be exposed to 

elevated noise levels due to the project construction activities for a short period of time. 

However, elevated noise levels would be a significant impact to burial services held at the 

cemetery, due to the sensitive nature of these outdoor activities. Implementation of Mitigation 

Measure M-NO-1: Prepare and Implement Administrative and Source Controls, which requires 

noise control measures and noise barrier walls as part of a Noise Control Plan, would reduce 

noise levels to below the speech interference threshold when burial services are in progress. 

Therefore, the noise levels would be less than significant with mitigation. 

9 Appendix D contains an analysis of the closest sensitive receptors to the construction activities. 




5.7 Noise 

Table 5.7-12 

Summary of Daytime Construction Noise Impacts by Site and Construction Phase 

Tree 

Removal 

Impact by Construction Phase 

Pipeline 

Dewatering 1 Mobilization 


Restoration 

Receiver 

Colma Site 

Home Sweet Home Assisted Living Facility NA NA LS LS 

Cypress Lawn Memorial Cemetery NA NA LS LSM 


Residences along Arroyo Drive SUM 2 NA LSM SUM 2 

Clubview Apartments LS NA LS LSM 

Golf Club of San Francisco LS NA LS LS 


Residences along Cedarwood Court and Pepper Drive NA NA SUM 3 SUM 3 


Park Plaza Apartments and Shelter Creek 

Condominiums 

NA LSM SUM 4 SUM 4 

Residences along Courtland Drive NA LS SUM 5 SUM 5 

Peninsula High School NA LS LS LSM 

Peninsula High School Athletic Fields NA LS LS LS 

San Bruno Chinese Church NA LS LSM LSM 

Millbrae Site 

Residences along Ridgewood Drive and Banbury Lane SUM 6 LS SUM 6 SUM 6 

Green Hills Country Club LS LS LS LS 

Residences along Hacienda Way SUM 7 LS LS LSM 

Meadows Elementary School LS LS LS LS 

Glen Oaks and Millbrae Montessori Schools LS LS LS LS 

Residences along Helen Drive LS LSM LS LS 

Residences along Millwood Drive and Barcelona Drive LS LSM LS LS 

Residences along Millwood Drive and Magnolia Avenue LS LS LS LS 


Residences along Fairway Drive NA NA LS NA 


Notes: 

1 

Impact significance determinations for nighttime dewatering activities are included in the table and described under Impact NO-2. 

Daytime pipeline dewatering activities would either be NA or LS, as described in Impact NO-1. 

2 

At the South San Francisco site, even with mitigation, three residences on Arroyo Drive (105, 107 and 108) would experience noise levels that 

exceed the speech interference threshold. Other residences would have an LS or LSM finding. Please refer to text for greater detail. 

3 

At the San Bruno North site, even with mitigation, four residences on Cedarwood Court (1800, 1820, 1840, and 1841) and five on 

Pepper Drive (769, 773, 779, 783, and 789) would experience noise levels that exceed the speech interference threshold. Other 

residences would have an LS or LSM finding. Please refer to text for greater detail. 

4 

At the San Bruno South site, even with mitigation, Shelter Creek Buildings 4A, 4B, and 4D only, and units at Park Plaza Apartments 

within 150 feet of the construction limit would experience noise levels that exceed the speech interference threshold. Other units would 

have an LS or LSM finding. Please refer to text for greater detail. 

5 

At the San Bruno South site, even with mitigation, 12 residences on Courtland Drive (300, 306, 310, 316, 320, 326, 330, 336, 340, 350, 360, 

and 370) would experience noise levels that exceed the speech interference threshold. Other residences would have an LS or LSM 

finding. Please refer to text for greater detail. 

6 

At the Millbrae site, even with mitigation, 11 residences on Ridgewood Drive (1078, 1086, 1094, 1100, 1101, 1106, 1110, 1116, 1120, 1126, 

and 1130) and one on Banbury Lane (971) would experience noise levels that exceed the speech interference threshold. Other 

residences would have an LS or LSM finding. Please refer to text for greater detail. 

7 

At the Millbrae site, even with mitigation, nine residences on Hacienda Way (859, 869, 873, 877, 881, 885, 889, 913, and 917) would 

experience noise levels that exceed the speech interference threshold. Other residences would have an LS or LSM finding. Please refer 

to text for greater detail. 









5.7 Noise 

An analysis of impacts at the South San Francisco, San Bruno North, San Bruno South, and 

Millbrae sites, as well as the common staging area, is provided below, following the text of 

Mitigation Measure M-NO-1. 

Mitigation Measure M-NO-1: Prepare and Implement Administrative and Source 

Controls 

This mitigation measure applies to all project sites, but does not apply to the common 

staging area. The SFPUC shall include in construction contract specifications the 

requirement to prepare a noise control plan. The contractor shall submit a noise control 

plan, prepared by a qualified noise consultant, to the SFPUC for review and approval at 

least 21 days before the start of mobilization/construction. The SFPUC shall require the 

noise consultant to be a board-certified Institute of Noise Control Engineering member or 

other qualified consultant or engineer, to be approved by the SFPUC project construction 

manager. The noise control plan shall contain performance standards based on the morerestrictive 

of the 70-dBA Leq speech interference threshold and the limits established in 

noise ordinances of San Mateo County, the Town of Colma, and the cities of San Bruno 

and Millbrae. The noise control plan shall identify the applicable threshold for each 

project site. The noise control plan shall, at a minimum, contain the following elements: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Location of equipment, parking, and other noise generating sources. 

Detailed list of potential noise control methods to meet the performance standards. 

Locations where it is not feasible to meet the performance standards shall be 

identified. 

Proposed staging and schedule of noise control measures. 

Anticipated performance of noise control measures. 

Number and location of monitoring locations and relation to stationary noise 

controls and sensitive receptors. 

Schedule for ongoing monitoring and reporting of construction noise levels to meet 

performance standards. Monitoring shall occur at least weekly, or more often if 

needed, in response to complaints. 

Specific noise control measures that shall be contained in the plan may include, but are 

not limited to, the following: 

a) Best available noise control techniques (including mufflers, intake silencers, ducts, 

engine enclosures, and acoustically attenuating shields or shrouds) will be used for 

all equipment and trucks in order to minimize construction noise impacts. 

b) If impact equipment (e.g., concrete/rock breaker, rock drill) is used during project 

construction, hydraulically or electric-powered equipment will be used to avoid the 

noise associated with compressed-air exhaust from pneumatically powered tools. 

However, where use of pneumatically powered tools is unavoidable, an exhaust 

muffler on the compressed-air exhaust will be used (a muffler can lower noise levels 




5.7 Noise 

from the exhaust by up to 10 dBA). External jackets on the tools themselves will be 

used, which could achieve a reduction of 5 dBA. Quieter procedures, such as drilling 

or vibratory methods rather than impact equipment, will be used. 

c) Alternative shoring installation techniques, such as beam-and-plate or drilled soldier 

piles, shall be employed to meet noise thresholds. 

d) The use of vibratory rollers and pile drivers shall be limited to the hours between 

7 a.m. to 5 p.m. 

e) Locate stationary noise sources away from sensitive receptors. If the sources must be 

located near receptors, adequate muffling (with enclosures where appropriate) will 

be used to ensure performance standards are met. Enclosure openings or vents will 

face away from sensitive receptors. If any stationary equipment (pumps, ventilation 

fans, generators) is operated beyond the ordinance time limits, this equipment will 

conform to the affected jurisdiction’s noise limits. 

f) Erect temporary noise barriers to maintain construction noise levels at or below the 

performance standards. Barriers shall be constructed with a solid material with a 

density of at least 2 pounds per square foot with no gaps. The location and 

specification of the barriers shall be determined by the approved noise consultant as 

part of the noise control plan. 

g) Designate a project liaison to be responsible for responding to noise complaints 

during construction. The name and phone number of the liaison will be 

conspicuously posted at construction areas and on all advanced notifications. The 

liaison will take steps to resolve complaints, including the arrangement of periodic 

noise monitoring, if necessary. Results of noise monitoring will be presented at 

regular project meetings with the project contractor, and the liaison will coordinate 

with the contractor to modify any construction activities that generated excessive 

noise levels. 

h) In the event of noise complaints, the contractor shall provide information to the 

SFPUC within 48 hours of being notified of the complaint regarding the noise levels 

measured and activities that correspond to the complaints. The SFPUC will compare 

the noise levels to the information in the noise control plan, and the effectiveness of 

the noise control measures will be verified by the contractor. The contractor will be 

responsible for the correct installation and use of all implemented noise control 

measures and for complying with noise specifications. 

To mitigate the contribution to elevated noise levels from back-up alarms, the contractor 

may use administrative controls instead of audible back-up alarms, subject to safety 

priorities and consistency with state and federal worker safety laws. Administrative 

controls may include designing traffic patterns at the project sites to minimize the need 

for backward movement, or requiring a spotter or flagger in clear view of the operator to 

direct the backing operation, or requiring the operator to dismount and circle the vehicle 

immediately prior to starting a reverse operation. 




5.7 Noise 

Alternatively, the SFPUC may consult with the California Division of Occupational 

Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) to determine whether additional noise reductions may be 

achieved through Cal/OSHA-approved alternatives to back-up alarms without 

compromising site safety. If Cal/OSHA indicates that such alternatives are a viable option 

and the SFPUC, in consultation with the contractor, determines that site safety would not 

be compromised, then the contractor shall apply for a variance from Cal/OSHA and use 

such alternatives consistent with Cal/OSHA requirements. Such alternatives could 

include, but are not limited to: 

 

 

 

 

“Smart” alarms that have an audible range of 77 to 103 dBA (but limit the warning 

signal to 5 dBA over ambient noise levels). 

Radar presence-sensing alarms that identify objects in the reversing path of a truck. 

Use of “bbs-tek” broadband back-up alarm systems that use a broadband sound 

instead of a more noticeable single-frequency sound. 

Use of strobe lights instead of audible alarms. 

The administrative source controls and alternatives identified above that are approved 

by Cal/OSHA instead of back-up alarms shall be included in the noise control plan. If 

none of these alternatives to back-up alarms can be implemented, the use of back-up 

alarms shall be minimized by routing the trucks and equipment through sites in a manner 

that reduces the need to back up. 

South San Francisco Site (Significant and Unavoidable with Mitigation) 

Residences along Arroyo Drive: Based on the results provided in Table D-3.3 in Appendix D, 

noise from construction activities would exceed the 70-dBA Leq speech interference threshold at 

approximately three homes along Arroyo Drive during the tree removal, mobilization, and 

excavation and restoration phases of construction, resulting in a potentially significant impact. 

Even with implementation of Mitigation Measure M-NO-1: Prepare and Implement 

Administrative and Source Controls (described above), which requires noise control measures 

and noise barrier walls as part of a Noise Control Plan, construction-related noise levels could 

still exceed the 70-dBA Leq speech interference threshold during the tree removal and excavation 

and restoration phases for longer than 2 weeks. When compared to the average daytime ambient 

noise levels, the mitigated noise levels would exceed the average ambient levels by up to 19 dB. 

With such an exceedance, the mitigated construction noise levels would be clearly audible during 

daytime hours. Therefore, the noise levels would be significant and unavoidable with 

mitigation. 

Clubview Apartments: As indicated in Table D-3.4 in Appendix D, noise from construction 

activities would exceed the 70-dBA Leq speech interference threshold at the Clubview Apartments 

and other residential receptors along West Orange Avenue during the excavation and restoration 

phase, for a period longer than 2 weeks, which is a significant impact. Implementation of 

Mitigation Measure M-NO-1: Prepare and Implement Administrative and Source Controls 

(described above), which requires noise control measures as part of a Noise Control Plan, would 

reduce the construction-related noise levels to below the 70-dBA Leq speech interference 

threshold. When compared to the average daytime ambient noise levels, the mitigated noise 

levels would typically be less than the average ambient level. Therefore, noise levels would be 





5.7 Noise 

California Golf Club of San Francisco: As indicated in Table D-3.5 in Appendix D, noise 

resulting from construction activities would exceed the 66-dBA Leq speech interference threshold 

at the California Golf Club of San Francisco during the excavation and restoration phase. When 

compared to the average daytime ambient noise levels, the noise levels would exceed the average 

ambient levels by several dB at the portion of the golf course closest to the eastern construction 

zone. However, the golf course users are mobile and are considered transient users, and would 

only be exposed to project noise levels for a short period of time; therefore, construction-related 

noise levels would be less than significant. 

San Bruno North Site (Significant and Unavoidable with Mitigation) 

Residences along Cedarwood Court and Pepper Drive: Based on the results provided in 

Table D-3.6 in Appendix D, noise from construction activities would exceed the 70-dBA Leq 

speech interference threshold at the four closest residential receptors along Cedarwood Court 

and the five closest residential receptors along Pepper Drive, during the mobilization and 

excavation and restoration construction phases, a potentially significant impact. Even with 

implementation of Mitigation Measure M-NO-1: Prepare and Implement Administrative and 

Source Controls (described above), which requires noise control measures and noise barrier 

walls as part of a Noise Control Plan, construction-related noise levels could still exceed the 

70-dBA Leq speech interference threshold for longer than 2 weeks, and by up to 13 dBA. When 

compared to the average daytime ambient noise levels, the mitigated noise levels would exceed 

the average ambient levels by up to 22 dB. Such an exceedance indicates that the construction 

noise levels would be clearly audible during daytime hours. Therefore, the mitigated noise levels 

would be significant and unavoidable with mitigation. 

San Bruno South Site (Significant and Unavoidable with Mitigation) 

Shelter Creek Condominiums: Based on the results provided in Table D-3.7 in Appendix D, 

noise resulting from construction activities would exceed the 70-dBA Leq speech interference 

threshold at Buildings 4A, 4B, and 4D during the mobilization and excavation and restoration 

phases of construction, a period longer than 2 weeks, which is a significant impact. Daytime 

pipeline dewatering is the only phase that would not exceed the 70-dBA Leq speech interference 

threshold. Even with implementation of Mitigation Measure M-NO-1: Prepare and Implement 

Administrative and Source Controls (described above), which requires noise control measures 

and noise barrier walls as part of a Noise Control Plan, construction-related noise levels could 

still exceed the 70-dBA Leq speech interference threshold by up to 22 dBA. When compared to the 

average daytime ambient noise levels, the mitigated noise levels would exceed the average 

ambient levels by up to 30 dB. With such an exceedance, the mitigated construction noise levels 

would be clearly audible during daytime hours. Although noise barrier walls can be employed to 

mitigate noise at ground floor receptors, it would not be feasible to construct noise barrier walls 

tall enough to mitigate construction-related noise levels at upper floor receptors. Therefore, the 

mitigated noise levels would be significant and unavoidable with mitigation. 

Park Plaza Apartments: Based on the results provided in Table D-3.7 in Appendix D, noise 


at apartment units within 150 feet of the construction zone during the mobilization and 

excavation and restoration phases of construction, a period longer than 2 weeks, which is a 

significant impact. Daytime pipeline dewatering is the only phase that would not exceed the 




5.7 Noise 

70-dBA Leq speech interference threshold. Even with implementation of Mitigation 

Measure M-NO-1: Prepare and Implement Administrative and Source Controls (described 

above), which requires noise control measures and noise barrier walls as part of a Noise Control 

Plan, construction-related noise levels could still exceed the 70-dBA Leq speech interference 

threshold by up to 22 dBA. When compared to the average daytime ambient noise levels, the 

mitigated noise levels would exceed the average ambient levels by up to 33 dB. With such an 

exceedance, the mitigated construction noise levels would be clearly audible during daytime 

hours. Although noise barrier walls can be employed to mitigate noise at ground floor receptors, 

it would not be feasible to construct noise barrier walls tall enough to mitigate constructionrelated 

noise levels at upper floor receptors. Therefore, the mitigated noise levels would be 

significant and unavoidable with mitigation. 

Residences along Courtland Drive: Based on the results provided in Table D-3.8 in Appendix D, 


threshold at the closest residential receptors along the construction zone (approximately 12 

homes on the eastern side of Courtland Drive) during the mobilization and excavation and 

restoration phases of construction, a period longer than 2 weeks, which is a significant impact. 

Daytime pipeline dewatering is the only phase that would not exceed the 70-dBA Leq speech 

interference threshold. Even with implementation of Mitigation Measure M-NO-1: Prepare and 

Implement Administrative and Source Controls (described above), which requires noise control 

measures and noise barrier walls as part of a Noise Control Plan, construction-related noise levels 

could still exceed the 70-dBA Leq speech interference threshold by up to 22 dBA. When compared 

to the average daytime ambient noise levels, the mitigated noise levels would exceed the average 

ambient levels by up to 33 dB. With such an exceedance, the mitigated construction noise levels 

would be clearly audible during daytime hours. Therefore, the mitigated noise levels would be 


Peninsula High School: As indicated in Table D-3.9 in Appendix D, noise resulting from 

construction activities would exceed the 70-dBA Leq speech interference threshold at Peninsula 

High School during the excavation and restoration phase, a period longer than 2 weeks, which is 

a significant impact. Daytime pipeline dewatering and the mobilization phases would not exceed 

the 70-dBA Leq speech interference threshold. Implementation of Mitigation Measure M-NO-1: 

Prepare and Implement Administrative and Source Controls (described above), which requires 

noise control measures and noise barriers walls as part of a Noise Control Plan, would reduce the 

construction-related noise levels to below the 70-dBA Leq speech interference threshold. When 

compared to the average daytime ambient noise levels, the mitigated construction-related noise 

levels would typically be less than the average ambient level. Therefore, the noise levels would be 


As indicated in Table D-3.10 in Appendix D, noise resulting from construction activities would 

exceed the 66-dBA Leq speech interference threshold at the Peninsula High School athletic fields 

during the mobilization and excavation and restoration construction phases, but daytime 

pipeline dewatering would not exceed the speech interference threshold. When compared to the 

average daytime ambient noise levels, the noise levels would exceed the average ambient levels 

by up to 29 dB at the athletic fields. However, the athletic field users are considered transient 

users, and would only be exposed to project noise levels for a short period of time; therefore, the 

construction-related noise levels would be less than significant. 




5.7 Noise 

San Bruno Chinese Church: As indicated in Table D-3.11 in Appendix D, noise resulting from 

construction activities would exceed the 70-dBA Leq speech interference threshold at the San 

Bruno Chinese Church during the mobilization and excavation and restoration phases, a period 

longer than 2 weeks, which is a significant impact. However, daytime pipeline dewatering would 

not exceed the speech interference threshold. Implementation of Mitigation Measure M-NO-1: 

Prepare and Implement Administrative and Source Controls (described above), which requires 


construction-related noise levels to below the 70-dBA Leq speech interference threshold. When 

compared to the average daytime ambient noise levels, the mitigated noise levels would typically 

be less than the average ambient level. Therefore, the noise levels would be less than significant 


Millbrae Site (Significant and Unavoidable with Mitigation) 

Residences along Ridgewood Drive and Banbury Lane: Based on the results provided in 

Table D-3.12 in Appendix D, noise resulting from construction activities would exceed the 

70-dBA Leq speech interference threshold at up to 11 homes along Ridgewood Drive and at one 

home along Banbury Lane, depending on the phase of construction and placement of contractor 

equipment, a potentially significant impact. However, daytime pipeline dewatering would not 

exceed the speech interference threshold. Even with implementation of Mitigation Measure M- 

NO-1: Prepare and Implement Administrative and Source Controls (described above), which 

requires noise control measures and noise barrier walls as part of a Noise Control Plan, 

construction-related noise levels could still exceed the 70-dBA Leq speech interference threshold 

by up to 17 dBA. When compared to the average daytime ambient noise levels, the mitigated 

noise levels would exceed the average ambient levels by up to 35 dB. Such an exceedance 

indicates that the mitigated construction noise levels would be clearly audible during daytime 

hours, and could continue over a period longer than 2 weeks. Due to the residences being located 

at a higher elevation than most of the construction zone, the use of noise barrier walls may only 

be mildly effective to reduce construction-related noise levels, particularly at the receptors 

located directly above the construction zone. Therefore, the mitigated noise levels would be 


Green Hill Country Club Golf Course: As indicated in Table D-3.13 in Appendix D, noise 


at the Green Hills Country Club Golf Course during all phases of construction. When compared 

to the average daytime ambient noise levels, the noise levels would exceed the average ambient 

levels by up to 54 dB at the northern portion of the golf course. However, the golf course users 

are mobile and are considered transient users, and would only be exposed to project noise levels 

for a short period of time; therefore, the construction-related noise levels would be less than 

significant. 

Residences along Hacienda Way: Based on the results provided in Table D-3.14 in Appendix D, 


threshold at approximately nine homes along Hacienda Way during the tree removal and 

excavation and restoration phases, a period longer than 2 weeks, which is a significant impact. 

However, daytime pipeline dewatering would not exceed the speech interference threshold. With 





5.7 Noise 

Source Controls (described above), which requires noise control measures as part of a Noise 

Control Plan, construction-related noise levels would meet the 70-dBA Leq speech interference 

threshold, except during the tree removal period and when the pile driver is in use during 

excavation. When compared to the average daytime ambient noise levels, the mitigated noise 

levels would exceed the average ambient levels by up to 18 dB. Such an exceedance indicates that 

the mitigated construction noise levels would be clearly audible during daytime hours. Due to 

the residences being located at a higher elevation than most of the construction zone, it would not 

be feasible to construct noise barrier walls tall enough to reduce construction-related noise levels 

at the residential receptors. As the tree removal period is expected to take 1.5 months, this 

represents a substantial impact. Therefore, the mitigated noise levels would be significant and 

unavoidable with mitigation. 

Residences along Helen Drive/Millwood Drive/Barcelona Drive/Magnolia Avenue: As 

indicated in Table D-3.21, Table D-3.23, and Table D-3.24 in Appendix D, daytime pipeline 

dewatering would not exceed the 70-dBA Leq speech interference threshold. Therefore, the 

construction-related noise levels would be less than significant. 

Meadows Elementary/Montessori Schools/Capuchino High School: As indicated in 

Table D-3.15, Table D-3.16, Table D-3.21, and Table D-3.24 in Appendix D, noise from 

construction activities would not exceed the 70- or the 66-dBA Leq speech interference thresholds 

at the Meadows Elementary School, Glen Oaks and Millbrae Montessori Schools, or Capuchino 

High School during any of the construction phases. When compared to the average daytime 

ambient noise levels, construction-related noise levels would typically be less than the average 

ambient level. Therefore, the noise levels would be less than significant. 

Common Staging Area (Less than Significant) 

Residences along Fairway Drive: Based on the results provided in Table D-3.17 in Appendix D, 

noise from construction activities would exceed the 70-dBA Leq speech interference threshold at 

approximately eight homes directly to the west of the staging area along Fairway Drive during 

the mobilization phase. When compared to the average daytime ambient noise levels, 

construction-related noise levels would exceed the average ambient levels by several dB. With 

such an exceedance, the construction noise levels would be clearly audible during daytime hours. 

However, the overall expected duration of mobilization activities at the common staging area is 

only 2 weeks. Activities lasting 2 weeks or less are not considered to be a substantial impact. 

After the site mobilization, the common staging area would be used for crew parking for the 

duration of the project. As these vehicles would be on-road vehicles and the total volume of cars 

would not significantly increase the traffic or noise levels on El Camino Real, this represents a 

less-than-significant impact. Therefore, construction-related noise levels would be less than 

significant. 

Access Route Traffic 

Truck noise levels depend on vehicle speed, load, terrain, and other factors and the effects of 

construction-related truck traffic would depend on the level of background noise already occurring 

at a particular receptor. In quiet noise environments such as residential neighborhoods protected by 

freeway noise barrier walls (Leq averaging 50 dBA), one truck per hour would be noticeable, even 

though such a low volume would not measurably increase noise levels. In slightly noisier 




5.7 Noise 

environments such as the freeway interchange vicinity in front of noise barrier walls (Leq averaging 

60 dBA), the threshold level is higher, and 10 trucks per hour would be required to noticeably 

increase the noise exposure. In moderately noisy environments (Leq averaging 70 dBA), a noise 

increase would be perceptible with the addition of 100 trucks per hour (Caltrans, 1998). 

In quiet environments or during quieter times of the day, truck noise is mainly a single-event 

disturbance; although the hourly average noise level associated with short, single events is not very 

high, individual noise peaks of 80 dBA at 50 feet are common during a truck passage. However, in 

noisier environments or during less noise-sensitive hours, truck noise is perceived as part of the 

total noise environment rather than as an individual disturbance. Therefore, this analysis estimates 

noise levels associated with hourly haul truck volumes (rather than a single passing truck). 

Haul truck volumes associated with the proposed project would vary from day to day, with the 

highest volumes generally occurring during the excavation and backfilling stages of pipeline 

replacement. Table 5.6.-6 in Section 5.6, Transportation, presents the estimated average and 

maximum haul trips for each project site. Site access and construction vehicle routes for each 

project site are described in Section 3.8.7 in Chapter 3, Project Description. The estimated noise 

levels, on an hourly basis, are presented below in Table 5.7-13. 

Project Site 

Table 5.7-13 

Estimated Hourly Leq Along Project Access Routes 

Daily Construction Truck Trips 

Average 

Maximum 

Estimated 

Hourly Leq 

(Average Truck 

Trips/Day) 

Estimated Hourly 

Leq (Maximum 

Truck Trips/Day) 

Colma 22 88 41 dBA 48 dBA 

South San Francisco 54 160 55 dBA 59 dBA 

San Bruno North 4 16 40 dBA 46 dBA 

San Bruno South 42 236 57 dBA 65 dBA 

Millbrae 24 130 55 dBA 62 dBA 

Source: Roche, 2011; PPSU project analysis, Vibro-Acoustic Consultants. 

Notes: 



The estimated maximum hourly noise levels from haul traffic could range from 46 dBA Leq to 

65 dBA Leq during daytime hours, as shown in Table 5.7-13. The 70-dBA Leq speech interference 

criterion would not be exceeded at any of the project sites. Therefore, noise impacts associated 

with construction trucks would be less than significant. 

Truck trip estimates are not provided for the common staging area in Table 5.7-13 because the 

area would be used primarily for field offices and for construction worker parking for the 

12-month duration of the PPSU project, and there would primarily be vehicle trips (not truck 

trips) associated with the site. 




5.7 Noise 

Impact NO-2: Nighttime construction and pipeline dewatering activities could result in 

substantial temporary increases in ambient nighttime noise levels that could interfere 

with nearby land uses. (Significant and Unavoidable with Mitigation) 

Daytime noise associated with construction and dewatering activities is assessed under 

Impact NO-1, above. Construction at the San Bruno North site is anticipated to require nighttime 

activities to avoid traffic impacts during peak hours. Nighttime pipeline dewatering is proposed 

at the San Bruno South and Millbrae sites. No other nighttime activities are proposed. 

A nighttime “substantial” noise impact is defined as short-term interference with activities during 

nighttime hours (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.). One indicator that construction or dewatering noise could 

interfere with nighttime activities would be sleep interference. A sleep interference threshold of 

60 dBA Leq at the exterior wall of a structure is applied for determining the significance of noise 

impacts associated with dewatering during nighttime hours. Project-related pipeline dewatering 

activities would result in temporary noise increases at sensitive receptors adjacent to or near the 

dewatering sites, as described above under Impact NO-1, and as shown on Figure 5.7-6. 

Dewatering noise levels would vary at any given receptor depending on the distance between the 

pump and receptor, and the presence or absence of barriers between the pump and the receptor. 

Based on the use of a customized pump and the rate of noise attenuation, the 60-dBA Leq sleep 

interference threshold would be met at a distance of 80 feet or greater from the pump. 

An impact analysis for each site with nighttime construction or nighttime dewatering activities is 

provided below; Table 5.7-14 summarizes the impacts at the closest sensitive receptors. 

Table 5.7-14 

Summary of Nighttime Construction Noise Impacts by Site and Construction Phase 

Receiver 


Residences along Cedarwood Court and Pepper 

Drive 


Park Plaza Apartments and Shelter Creek 

Condominiums 

Millbrae Site 

Tree 

Removal 

Impact by Construction Phase 

Pipeline 

Dewatering Mobilization 


Restoration 

NA NA SUM 1 SUM 1 

NA LSM NA NA 

Residences along Helen Drive NA LSM NA NA 

Residences along Hacienda Way NA LS NA NA 

Residences along Millwood Drive/Barcelona 

Drive/Magnolia Avenue 

NA LSM NA NA 

Capuchino High School NA LS NA NA 


Notes: 

1 

At the San Bruno North site, even with mitigation, seven residences on Cedarwood Court (1790, 1800, 1801, 1820, 1821, 1840, 

and 1841) and eight on Pepper Drive (763, 769, 773, 779, 783, 789, 793, and 795) would experience noise levels that exceed the sleep 

interference threshold. Other residences would have an LS or LSM finding. Please refer to text for greater detail. 








5.7 Noise 


Residences along Cedarwood Court and Pepper Drive: Based on the results provided in 

Table D-3.25 in Appendix D, noise from nighttime construction activities would exceed the 

60-dBA Leq sleep interference threshold at the seven closest residential receptors along 

Cedarwood Court and the eight closest residential receptors along Pepper Drive during the 

mobilization and excavation and restoration construction phases, a potentially significant impact. 

Even with implementation of Mitigation Measure M-NO-1: Prepare and Implement 

Administrative and Source Controls (described above under Impact NO-1), which requires 

noise control measures and noise barrier walls as part of a Noise Control Plan and prohibits 

nighttime vibratory rolling and pile driving activities, construction-related noise levels could still 

exceed the 60-dBA Leq sleep interference threshold by up to 20 dBA. When compared to the 

average nighttime ambient noise levels, the mitigated noise levels would exceed the average 

ambient levels by up to 22 dB. Such an exceedance indicates that the construction noise levels 

would be clearly audible during nighttime hours. Therefore, the mitigated noise levels would be 


San Bruno South Site (Less than Significant with Mitigation) 

Park Plaza Apartments: The closest sensitive receptor to the SAPL2-1 dewatering site is the Park 

Plaza Apartments building, located approximately 55 feet from the site. As indicated in 

Table D-3.18 in Appendix D-3, noise resulting from dewatering activities would be 64 dBA at this 

receptor. Therefore, it would exceed the 60-dBA Leq sleep interference threshold at apartment 

units within 80 feet of the dewatering site, a potentially significant impact. With implementation 

of Mitigation Measure M-NO-1, which requires noise barrier walls as part of a Noise Control 

Plan, the noise levels would be reduced to below the 60-dBA Leq sleep interference threshold. 

Therefore, the noise levels would be less than significant with mitigation. 

Shelter Creek Condominiums: Buildings 1-B and 2-D are approximately 75 feet from the 

dewatering site SAPL3-1. As indicated in Table D-3.19 in Appendix D-3, noise resulting from 

dewatering activities would be 61 dBA at the closest sensitive receptor. This noise level would 

exceed the 60-dBA Leq sleep interference threshold at condominium units within 80 feet of the 

dewatering site, a potentially significant impact. With implementation of Mitigation 

Measure M-NO-1, which requires noise barrier walls as part of a Noise Control Plan, the noise 

levels would be reduced to below the 60-dBA Leq sleep interference threshold. Therefore, the 

noise levels would be less than significant with mitigation. 

There are no sensitive receptors within 80 feet of the SAPL3-2 dewatering site. As indicated in 

Table D-3.20 in Appendix D-3, noise resulting from dewatering activities would not exceed the 

60-dBA Leq sleep interference threshold at the Shelter Creek Condominiums. Therefore the impact 



Residences along Helen Drive: There are three residential receptors within 80 feet of the 

SSBPL-1 dewatering site (the distance for the sleep interference threshold). As indicated in 

Table D-3.21 in Appendix D-3, noise resulting from dewatering activities would be 67 dBA at the 

closest sensitive receptor. This noise level exceeds the 60-dBA Leq sleep interference threshold, a 




5.7 Noise 

potentially significant impact. With implementation of Mitigation Measure M-NO-1, which 

requires noise barrier walls as part of a Noise Control Plan, the noise levels would be reduced to 

below the 60-dBA Leq sleep interference threshold. Therefore, the noise levels would be less than 


Residences along Hacienda Way: There are no residential receptors within 80 feet of the SSBPL-2 

dewatering site located near the fifth green of the Green Hills Country Club. As indicated in 

Table D-3.22 in Appendix D-3, noise resulting from dewatering activities would not exceed the 

60-dBA Leq sleep interference threshold at the closest residential receptor. Therefore, the impact 


Residences along Millwood Drive/Barcelona Drive/Magnolia Avenue: There is one residential 

receptor within 80 feet of the SSBPL-3 dewatering site at Millwood Drive and Barcelona Drive. As 

indicated in Table D-3.23 in Appendix D-3, noise resulting from dewatering activities would be 

67 dBA at the closest sensitive receptor. This noise level would exceed the 60-dBA Leq sleep 

interference threshold, a potentially significant impact. With implementation of Mitigation 

Measure M-NO-1, which requires noise barrier walls as part of a Noise Control Plan, the noise 

levels would be reduced to below the 60-dBA Leq sleep interference threshold. Therefore, the 

noise levels would be less than significant with mitigation. 

There are no residential receptors within 80 feet of the SSBPL-4 dewatering site at Millwood 

Drive and Magnolia Avenue. As indicated in Table D-3.24 in Appendix D-3, noise resulting from 

dewatering activities would not exceed the 60-dBA Leq sleep interference threshold at the closest 

residential receptor. Therefore the impact would be less than significant. 

Capuchino High School: The school does not operate during nighttime hours, and there are no 

school buildings or athletic fields within 80 feet of either the SSBPL-3 or SSBPL-4 dewatering 

sites. Therefore, the noise impact resulting from dewatering activities at the Capuchino High 

School is less than significant. 

Impact NO-3: Construction activities could result in exposure of persons to, or 

generation of, noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or 

noise ordinance. (Significant and Unavoidable with Mitigation) 

Colma Site (Less than Significant with Mitigation) 

The Colma site is located in a commercial zone and is within 500 feet of Home Sweet Home 

assisted living facility, which is a Planned Development that includes residential uses. Therefore, 

the noise levels provided in the Town of Colma Noise Ordinance would apply. Under the Colma 

noise ordinance, construction hours are determined by the building official on a case-by-case 

basis for projects outside of residential zoning districts. Because it is uncertain at this time what 

hours would be established by the building official, this analysis uses the conservative hours 

provided in the ordinance for residential uses. The ordinance limits each piece of construction 

equipment to a noise level of 85 dBA at a distance of 25 feet. The equivalent noise limit at 50 feet 

would be 79 dBA. With implementation of Mitigation Measure M-NO-1: Prepare and 

Implement Administrative and Source Controls, which requires noise control measures as part 

of a Noise Control Plan, all equipment proposed for the project would meet the ordinance limit of 




5.7 Noise 

79 dBA at a distance of 50 feet with the implementation of the required noise control measures 

shown in Table 5.7-11. 

The proposed construction activities would start 3 hours before the ordinance time limits on 

weekends. Outside of the time limits, the ordinance limits noise from each piece of construction 

equipment to a level of 60 dBA at a distance of 25 feet. The equivalent noise limit at 50 feet would 

be 54 dBA. As indicated in Table 5.7-11, all equipment proposed for the project exceeds the 

ordinance limit of 54 dBA at a distance of 50 feet, even with the required noise control measures, 

a potentially significant impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measure M-NO-3a: Limit Hours 

of Construction at Colma Site would limit the hours and permissible noise levels of construction 

at the Colma site, and would reduce this impact to less than significant with mitigation. 

Mitigation Measure M-NO-3a: Limit Hours of Construction at Colma Site 

This mitigation measure applies to the Colma site. Any construction work conducted 

within the Town of Colma shall be limited to the hours established in the Town noise 

ordinance (weekdays 7:00 a.m. to 8 p.m. and Saturdays 10 a.m. to 6 p.m.), unless determined 

otherwise by the Colma building official. 

South San Francisco Site (No Impact) 

The California Golf Club of San Francisco is the only sensitive receptor located in unincorporated 

San Mateo County; the other sensitive receptors are located within the City of South San 

Francisco, discussed below. In the San Mateo County Noise Ordinance, there are no published 

limits to noise levels generated by construction activities occurring on weekdays between 7 a.m. 

and 6 p.m., and on Saturdays between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Furthermore, there are no published 

limits to noise levels at outdoor recreational land uses outside of these hours. Therefore, the noise 

levels generated by the project would not conflict with the ordinance and would result in no 

impact. 

Utility and street repair work is exempt from the City of South San Francisco Noise Ordinance 

(Section 8.32.050 [c]). Therefore, the construction activities at the South San Francisco site would 

not conflict with the ordinance, and would result in no impact. 


During the City of San Bruno Noise Ordinance time limits, the noise level from constructionrelated 

activities is limited to 85 dBA at a distance of 100 feet during daytime hours (7 a.m. to 

10 p.m.), and to 60 dBA at a distance of 100 feet during nighttime hours (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.). The 

equivalent noise limits at 50 feet would be 91 dBA and 66 dBA, respectively. As indicated in 

Table 5.7-11, all equipment proposed for the project meets the daytime ordinance limit of 91 dBA 

at a distance of 50 feet. However, the majority of equipment proposed for use in the project 

construction exceeds the nighttime ordinance limit of 66 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. Even with 


Source Controls, which requires noise control measures and noise barrier walls as part of a Noise 

Control Plan, construction-related noise levels would exceed the nighttime ordinance limit by up 

to 4 dB. Therefore, construction-related noise levels would be significant and unavoidable with 

mitigation. 




5.7 Noise 

San Bruno South Site (No Impact) 

As described above, the noise level from construction-related activities is limited to 91 dBA at a 

distance of 50 feet in San Bruno during daytime hours (7 a.m. to 10 p.m.), and to 66 dBA at a 

distance of 50 feet during nighttime hours (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.). As indicated in Table 5.7-11, all 

equipment proposed for the project meets the daytime ordinance limit of 91 dBA at a distance of 

50 feet. As indicated in Impact NO-1, the pipeline dewatering pump generates 69 dBA at a 

distance of 30 feet; the resultant level at 50 feet is 65 dBA. The pipeline dewatering pump 

proposed for the project meets the ordinance limits during both daytime and nighttime hours. 

Therefore, the construction equipment noise levels would have no impact. 

Millbrae Site (Significant and Unavoidable with Mitigation) 

In the City of Millbrae Noise Ordinance, there are no published limits to noise levels generated 

by construction activities occurring on weekdays between 7:30 a.m. and 7 p.m., on Saturdays 

between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m., and on Sundays and holidays between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m. Therefore, 

the noise levels generated by the project during the regulated time limits would not conflict with 

the ordinance. 

As described under Impact NO-1 above, the proposed daytime construction activities would start 

one-half hour before the ordinance time limits on weekdays, 1 hour before the time limits on 

Saturdays, and 2 hours before the time limits on Sundays. Construction occurring outside of the 

ordinance time limits would be inconsistent with the ordinance and therefore could result in a 

significant impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measure M-NO-3b: Limit Hours of 

Construction at Millbrae Site would limit the hours and permissible noise levels of construction 

at the Millbrae site, and would reduce this impact to less than significant with mitigation. 

However, because the proposed pipeline dewatering activities would extend over 24-hour periods, 

these activities would occur outside of the City of Millbrae Noise Ordinance time limits. Construction 

occurring outside of the ordinance time limits would be inconsistent with the ordinance, and therefore 

could result in a significant noise impact. Even with implementation of Mitigation Measure M-NO-1: 

Prepare and Implement Administrative and Source Controls, which requires the SFPUC to reduce 

pipeline dewatering noise levels to the speech interference and sleep interference thresholds, this 

impact would remain significant and unavoidable with mitigation. 

Mitigation Measure M-NO-3b: Limit Hours of Construction at Millbrae Site 

This mitigation measure applies to the Millbrae site. Except for dewatering activities, any 

construction work conducted within the City of Millbrae shall be limited to the hours 

established in the City noise ordinance (weekdays 7:30 a.m. to 7 p.m.; Saturdays 8 a.m. to 

6 p.m.; and Sundays and holidays 9 a.m. to 6 p.m.). 

Common Staging Area (Less than Significant with Mitigation) 

The common staging area would be used for staging equipment and materials, as well as for 

temporary offices and personnel parking for the PPSU and other SFPUC projects in the region. Trucks 

moving equipment on and off site would generate the most noise associated with use of the 

common staging area. Because utility work is not being performed at this site, construction activities 




5.7 Noise 

at the common staging area are not considered to be exempt from the City of South San Francisco 

Municipal Code for the purposes of this analysis. During the Municipal Code time limits, each piece 

of construction equipment is limited to a noise level of 84 dBA at a distance of 50 feet and the noise 

level at the project boundary is limited to 90 dBA. As indicated in Table 5.7-11, all equipment 

proposed for the project meet the ordinance limits of 84 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. Based on the 

results provided in Table D-3.17 in Appendix D, noise from construction activities also meets the 

ordinance limits of 90 dBA at the project boundary. Therefore, in regard to the South San Francisco 

Municipal Code, the project would have no impact. 

When compared to the Municipal Code, the proposed construction activities would start 1 hour 

before the ordinance time limits on weekdays, 2 hours before the time limits on Saturdays, and 

3 hours before the time limits on Sundays and holidays. Outside of the time limits, the ordinance 

limits noise from construction activities to 60 dBA at residential receptors during daytime hours. 

As indicated in Table D-3.17 in Appendix D, noise resulting from construction activities could 

exceed the 60-dBA limit at residential receptors along Fairway Drive, a potentially significant 

impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measure M-NO-1: Prepare and Implement 

Administrative and Source Controls (detailed under Impact NO-1), which requires noise control 

measures as part of a Noise Control Plan, would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant 

level. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant with mitigation. 

After the site mobilization, the common staging area would be used for crew parking for the 

duration of the project. As these vehicles would be on-road vehicles generating similar noise to 

any vehicle parking along El Camino Real, and the total volume of cars would not significantly 

increase the traffic on El Camino Real, this represents a less-than-significant impact. 

Impact NO-4: Construction activities could result in exposure of persons or structures 

to generation of excessive groundborne vibration. (Significant and Unavoidable with 

Mitigation) 

Vibration levels generated by construction activities would vary depending on project conditions 

such as soil, construction methods, and equipment used. The use of pile drivers, vibratory rollers/ 

compactors, and heavy trucks would generate groundborne vibration in the vicinity of the 

activity. As described above in Section 5.7.3.2, this analysis applies two significance thresholds, 

one related to potential damage and one related to nighttime vibration-related annoyance. The 

significance threshold related to potential damage is 0.3 in/sec PPV for continuous vibration and 

0.5 in/sec PPV for transient vibration. A significance threshold of 0.01 in/sec PPV for continuous 

vibration and 0.04 in/sec for transient vibration is applied to nighttime construction activities for 

vibration-related annoyance at residential receptors. However, none of the proposed equipment 

or construction methods meet the description of a transient source; therefore, the transient 

thresholds will not be considered further in this analysis. 

Table 5.7-15 summarizes vibration source levels from various types and sizes of vibrationproducing 

equipment that may be used for the PPSU project. The distance needed for vibration 

to attenuate to the vibration significance threshold levels has been calculated based on the 

following equation (Caltrans, 2004): 

PPV = PPVref × (25/Distance) 1.1 




5.7 Noise 

Distances calculated for potential vibration annoyance or building damage, such as those 

presented in Table 5.7-15, should be measured from the source of the vibration to the closest part 

of the actual structure (not the property line or at exterior locations away from the structure). 

Table 5.7-15 

Distance Within Which Vibration Annoyance and Damage Potential Thresholds For 

Continuous Construction Sources Would Be Exceeded 

Equipment 

Reference PPV at 

25 feet 

Distance to 0.3 in/sec 

PPV Damage 

Potential Threshold 

(older residential 

structure) 

Distance to 

0.01 in/sec PPV 

Annoyance 

Threshold 

(nighttime 

residential receptor) 

Large Bulldozer 0.089 10 feet 190 feet 

Loaded Trucks 0.076 10 feet 160 feet 

Small Bulldozer 0.003 5 feet 10 feet 

Vibratory Pile Driver 0.170/0.734 1 15/60 feet 2 330/1,250 feet 2 

Vibratory Roller 0.210 20 feet 400 feet 

Source: FTA, 2006; PPSU project analysis, Vibro-Acoustic Consultants. 

Notes: 

1 The 0.170 PPV level refers to typical levels; the 0.734 PPV level refers to the maximum level. 

2 The smaller distance applies to typical vibration levels; the larger distance applies to the maximum vibration level. 

Colma Site (Less than Significant) 

The estimated vibration levels from construction-related activities at the nearest residential 

receptor would be 0.04 in/sec PPV or less. These levels would be below the damage potential 

threshold. There would be no construction during nighttime hours at this site; therefore, no 

nighttime vibration impacts would occur. Therefore, impacts from groundborne vibration 

generated by construction activities at the Colma site would be less than significant. 

South San Francisco Site (Less than Significant with Mitigation) 

There is a single residential receptor on Arroyo Drive, which would be potentially located within 

60 feet of pile driving activities that would generate vibration levels of 0.14 to 0.6 in/sec PPV; 

these levels may exceed the damage potential threshold, a potentially significant impact. There 

would be no construction during nighttime hours; therefore, no nighttime vibration impacts 

would occur. Implementation of Mitigation Measure M-NO-4: Develop and Implement 

Vibration Planning, Monitoring, and Reporting, which requires vibration control measures and 

monitoring as part of a Vibration Control Plan, would reduce vibration impacts to less than 


An impact analysis for the San Bruno North, San Bruno South, and Millbrae sites is provided 

below, following the text of Mitigation Measure M-NO-4. 




5.7 Noise 

Mitigation Measure M-NO-4: Develop and Implement Vibration Planning, 

Monitoring, and Reporting 

This mitigation measure applies to the South San Francisco, San Bruno North, San Bruno 

South, and Millbrae sites. The SFPUC shall include in construction contract specifications 

the requirement to prepare and implement a vibration control plan. The contractor shall 

submit a vibration control plan, prepared by a qualified vibration consultant, to the 

SFPUC for review and approval at least 21 days before the start of mobilization/ 

construction. The vibration control plan shall contain measures to reduce constructionrelated 

vibration to meet the 0.3 in/sec PPV damage potential threshold. In addition, at 

the San Bruno North site, the plan shall contain measures to reduce construction-related 

vibration to meet the 0.01 in/sec PPV nighttime annoyance potential threshold, to the 

extent feasible. 

The vibration control plan shall, at a minimum, contain the following elements: 

 

 

Procedures outlining the coordination among the SFPUC, the contractor, field 

monitors, and property owners. 

Address the use of low-vibration equipment (or using lower power equipment or 

lower power setting) and methods when working near residential receptors. 

Specific vibration control measures that could be addressed in the plan include, but are 

not limited to, the following: 

a) Avoiding or reducing simultaneous operation of multiple pieces of construction 

equipment in proximity to buildings. 

b) The use of vibratory rollers and pile drivers shall be limited to the hours between 

7 a.m. and 10 p.m. 

c) Continuous monitoring of vibration levels when vibratory equipment is in use 

within 50 feet of residential receptors. 

d) Continuous monitoring of pile driving vibration levels within 150 feet of residential 

receptors. 

e) Pile driving is not to occur within 60 feet of residential structures; the contractor must 

provide trench shoring using another less-vibration-intensive method within 60 feet 

of residential structures. 

f) Weekly reporting of the vibration monitoring results. 

If construction vibration monitoring demonstrates that the project-generated vibration is 

lower than the values estimated, then the SFPUC could allow these activities to be 

conducted within the buffer zones, based on evaluation of monitoring data by a qualified 

vibration consultant. 

The SFPUC will consult with a California-licensed geotechnical engineer to develop 

procedures to reduce vibration impacts on adjacent sensitive receptors. The SFPUC will 

ensure that the construction contractor follows the recommendations of the final 




5.7 Noise 

geotechnical report regarding excavation and construction. The SFPUC will also ensure 

that the construction contractor monitors adjacent residential receptors during 

construction as recommended by the geotechnical engineer. 

The construction contractor will use low-vibration equipment and appropriate trench 

shoring when working close to buildings, when required by the geotechnical engineer. If 

necessary, trench shoring near buildings will be designed with the capacity to support 

the soil loading, as determined by the project structural and/or geotechnical engineer. 

The construction contractor will monitor the building until the trench is backfilled. 

SFPUC and the contractor will coordinate with property owners to attempt to gain 

property access where necessary for vibration monitoring. Where access is granted, the 

SFPUC shall conduct monitoring to assess construction vibration impacts on adjacent 

buildings. The SFPUC shall assess the building’s pre-construction conditions, identify 

potential sources of background vibration, and monitor construction vibration near 

adjacent residential receptors using appropriate monitoring equipment. The SFPUC will 

coordinate with the construction contractor to adjust construction techniques so as to 

keep vibration levels below the 0.3-in/sec PPV threshold potential damage criterion. The 

SFPUC will conduct visual surveys during construction, monitor for cracks and other 

damage, and conduct a post-construction structural evaluation. 

SFPUC will provide outreach and information to affected residential receptors regarding 

projected vibration. At a minimum, this will be provided to residences with structures 

within approximately 200 feet of construction activities. For residential structures within 

these zones, the SFPUC will convey to the owners the fact that structural damage occurs 

at very high vibration levels, far above the threshold of human perception, and that 

vibration from construction activities will be monitored to prevent structural damage. 


The four residential receptors along Cedarwood Court closest to the construction and staging 

areas are potentially within 50 feet of vibratory roller activities, and within 60 feet of pile driving 

activities. At these receptors, vibratory roller activities could generate vibration levels up to 

0.37 in/sec PPV, and pile driving activities could generate vibration levels of 0.3 to 1.29 in/sec PPV; 

these levels exceed the damage potential threshold, a potentially significant impact. 

Implementation of Mitigation Measure M-NO-4: Develop and Implement Vibration Planning, 

Monitoring, and Reporting, which requires vibration control measures and monitoring as part of 

a Vibration Control Plan, would reduce vibration impacts to less than significant with 

mitigation. 

There are eight residential receptors along Cedarwood Court, and eight residential receptors along 

Pepper Drive that are potentially within 190 feet of construction activities (1790, 1791, 1800, 1801, 

1820, 1821, 1840, and 1841 Cedarwood Court; 763, 769, 773, 779, 783, 789, 793, and 795 Pepper 

Drive). At these receptors, the vibration levels from loaded trucks and bulldozers could be up to 

0.16 in/sec PPV; these levels are below the damage potential threshold but exceed the nighttime 

annoyance threshold of 0.01 in/sec PPV, a potentially significant impact. Residential receptors 

within 400 feet of vibratory rolling activities and 1,250 feet of pile driving activities could be 

subjected to vibration levels exceeding the nighttime annoyance threshold of 0.01 in/sec PPV, a 




5.7 Noise 

potentially significant impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measure M-NO-4: Develop and 

Implement Vibration Planning, Monitoring, and Reporting, which requires vibration control 

measures to the extent feasible and prohibits vibratory rolling and pile driving activities during 

nighttime hours as part of a Vibration Control Plan, would reduce vibration impacts but not 

necessarily to a less-than-significant level. Because this exceedance would potentially occur for 

up to 1 month, the nighttime vibration impact would be significant and unavoidable with 

mitigation. 

San Bruno South Site (Less than Significant with Mitigation) 

There are 11 single-family homes along Courtland Drive; several units at the Park Plaza 

Apartments; and the Shelter Creek Condominium Buildings 4A, 4B, and 4D potentially located 

within 50 feet of vibratory roller activities and within 60 feet of pile driving activities. At these 

receptors, vibratory roller activities could generate vibration levels up to 0.58 in/sec PPV and pile 

driving activities could generate vibration levels of 0.47 to 2.0 in/sec PPV; these levels exceed the 

damage potential threshold, a potentially significant impact. Implementation of Mitigation 

Measure M-NO-: Develop and Implement Vibration Planning, Monitoring, and Reporting, 

which requires vibration control measures and monitoring as part of a Vibration Control Plan, 

would reduce vibration impacts to less than significant with mitigation. 

Nighttime activities would be limited to pipeline dewatering. Because the pump for the dewatering 

would be mounted to a trailer supported on rubber tires, it would not generate substantial vibration 

levels. Therefore, pipeline dewatering-related vibration levels would be less than significant. 


The five residential receptors along Ridgewood Drive closest to the construction zone are 

potentially located within 50 feet of vibratory roller activities and within 60 feet of pile driving 

activities. At these receptors, vibratory roller activities could generate vibration levels up to 

0.58 in/sec PPV and pile driving activities could generate vibration levels of 0.47 to 2.0 in/sec PPV; 

these levels exceed the damage potential threshold, a potentially significant impact. 

Implementation of Mitigation Measure M-NO-4: Develop and Implement Vibration Planning, 

Monitoring, and Reporting, which requires vibration control measures and monitoring as part of a 

Vibration Control Plan, would reduce vibration impacts to less than significant with mitigation. 

Nighttime activities would be limited to pipeline dewatering. Because the pump for the 

dewatering would be mounted to a trailer supported on rubber tires, it would not generate 

substantial vibration levels. Therefore, pipeline dewatering-related vibration levels would be less 


Common Staging Area (Less than Significant) 

The estimated vibration levels from construction-related activities at the nearest residential 

receptor would be 0.06 in/sec PPV or less. These levels are below the damage potential threshold. 

Therefore, groundborne vibration generated by construction activities at the common staging 

area would be less than significant. 




5.7 Noise 


As described above, during operation, the proposed project would not introduce new sources of 

noise or vibration. Future operations and maintenance would be the same as existing operations 

and maintenance activities and would continue to entail yearly visual inspections of the 

pipelines. As no new sources of noise or vibration would be introduced and yearly maintenance 

activities are extremely limited in duration, the proposed project would not have operationsrelated 

noise or vibration impacts, and there would be no impact. 


Impact C-NO: Project construction could result in a cumulatively considerable 

contribution to cumulative noise and vibration impacts. (Less than Significant with 

Mitigation) 

For cumulative construction-related noise and vibration impacts, the geographic scope 

encompasses the sensitive residential receptors adjacent to the construction zones and access 

routes for the cumulative project sites and the PPSU project site. As indicated in Section 5.1, 

Overview, and shown on Figure 5.1-1, construction of the following two projects could overlap 

geographically and/or occur concurrently with PPSU construction activities at the project sites: 

 

 

Regional Groundwater Storage and Recovery (GSR) project at the Colma and South San 

Francisco sites, and at the Common Staging Area; and 

Harry Tracy Water Treatment Plant (HTWTP) Long-Term Improvements project at the 

Millbrae site. 

At the San Bruno North and San Bruno South sites, no cumulative noise impacts would occur 

because there are no other projects that would combine with the proposed project at these sites; 

therefore, cumulative impacts at these sites are not discussed below. 

Construction Equipment 

If construction activities from the PPSU and GSR projects were to coincide at the Colma or the 

South San Francisco sites, or if construction activities from the PPSU and HTWTP projects were 

to coincide at the Millbrae site, it is possible that the cumulative noise levels could exceed the 

speech interference criterion, which would be a cumulatively significant impact. 

As discussed in Impact NO-1, construction-related noise levels from the PPSU project at the 

Colma site would be less than significant with mitigation. Implementation of Mitigation 

Measure M-NO-1: Prepare and Implement Administrative and Source Controls, which requires 


noise from construction activities associated with the PPSU project to 60 dBA Leq or less at the 

Home Sweet Home facility, at least 10 dB below the speech interference threshold. Therefore, the 

project’s mitigated noise level would not be cumulatively considerable, and the cumulative 

impact at the Home Sweet Home facility would be less than significant with mitigation. 

If the GSR project coincides with the PPSU project, it is possible that the cumulative noise levels 

could exceed the speech interference criterion at the Cypress Lawn Cemetery, which would be a 




5.7 Noise 

cumulatively significant impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measure M-NO-1: Prepare and 

Implement Administrative and Source Controls, which requires noise control measures and 

noise barrier walls as part of a Noise Control Plan, would reduce construction-related noise levels 

from the PPSU project at the Cypress Lawn Cemetery to 62 dBA Leq or less, below the 66-dBA Leq 

speech interference threshold for outdoor areas. In addition, the project description for the GSR 

project indicates that GSR construction activities would be halted during burial services (Zhang, 

2012). As a result, the cumulative noise levels from the PPSU and GSR projects would not 

cumulatively combine to exceed the 66-dBA Leq speech interference criterion during burial 

services. Therefore, the cumulative impact would be less than significant with mitigation. 

At the South San Francisco site, the closest GSR project sites are approximately 850 feet and 

1,250 feet away from the closest sensitive receptors to the PPSU project site. At these distances, 

construction-related noise levels would be expected to decrease by 59 and 62 dBA, respectively. 

Thus, due to the distance between the two projects, noise from PPSU construction activities 

would not combine with noise from the GSR project at this location; therefore, the cumulative 

impact would be less than significant. 

At the Millbrae site, the HTWTP construction activities are expected to be complete in March 

2015; therefore, HTWTP construction activities will overlap with the tree removal phase of the 

PPSU project. However, construction-related noise levels at the Meadows Elementary School and 

residential receptors along Helen Drive from the tree removal phase of the PPSU project would 

be at least 10 dB lower than the speech interference threshold. The PPSU project noise levels 

would not combine with the noise levels associated with the HTWTP project to exceed the speech 

interference threshold; therefore, the cumulative impact would be less than significant. 

At the common staging area, the PPSU and GSR projects will overlap geographically and occur 

concurrently. As discussed in Impact NO-1, construction-related noise levels from the PPSU 

project would exceed the speech interference threshold. When combined with noise levels from 

the GSR project, the total noise levels could exceed the speech interference threshold at the 

residential receptors west of the common staging area. However, the duration of this exceedance 

will be limited to a 2-week period during mobilization for the PPSU project. Therefore, the 

cumulative impact would be less than significant. 

Access Route Traffic 

The GSR project is projected to use the same access routes as the PPSU project at the Colma and 

South San Francisco sites. It is estimated that the GSR project would have peak truck traffic of 

approximately 20 round trips per day at the PPSU site, and approximately 53 round trips per day 

at the South San Francisco site (Zhang, 2012). Conservatively, it can be estimated that maximum 

hourly noise levels from cumulative traffic activity could reach 49 dBA Leq at the Colma site and 

60 dBA Leq at the South San Francisco site. These levels would not exceed the 70-dBA Leq speech 

interference criterion. Therefore, there would be no significant cumulative impact. At the 

Millbrae site, the HTWTP project will also use Larkspur Drive as an access route; however, this 

route will only be used for heavy trucks during the Sunset Branch Pipeline relining phase, which 

is estimated to be complete by December 2013. Therefore, the access routes will not be used 

simultaneously, and there would be no significant cumulative impact. For all of these reasons, 

cumulative impacts related to access route traffic would be less than significant. 




5.7 Noise 

Exposure of Persons to Noise Levels in Excess of Standards Established in the Local Noise 

Ordinance 

The Town of Colma Noise Ordinance regulates the noise for single pieces of construction 

equipment, rather than noise levels at a sensitive receptor. Therefore, cumulative impacts from 

multiple projects would not conflict with the noise code, and would have no impact. 

The City of South San Francisco Noise Ordinance limits noise levels to 90 dBA at the project 

boundary; as discussed above under Construction Equipment, the noise from the GSR project 

sites would not combine to raise noise levels at the project boundaries. Therefore, the cumulative 

noise levels from PPSU project in combination with the GSR project would not conflict with the 

South San Francisco Noise Ordinance, and impacts would be less than significant. 

As described above, none of the cumulative projects would be located in close enough proximity 

to the PPSU project at the San Bruno North or San Bruno South sites to combine with the noise or 

vibration impacts associated with the PPSU project; therefore, there would be no impacts 

associated with the City of San Bruno Noise Ordinance. The City of Millbrae Noise Ordinance 

does not regulate the noise levels from construction during the permitted time limits. Therefore, 

cumulative noise from multiple projects would not conflict with the ordinance, and the 

cumulative impact would be less than significant. 

Exposure of Persons or Structures to Excessive Groundborne Vibration 

The Colma site and common staging area have the potential for combined vibration impacts due 

to proximity of cumulative projects to these PPSU sites. On the other hand, in the area of the 

South San Francisco and Millbrae sites, where there would be activities from the GSR and 

HTWTP sites, respectively, groundborne vibrations would be attenuated due to the distance 

between the sites in such a way that there would be no cumulative increase at any sensitive 

receptors. 

At the Colma site, concurrent activities from the PPSU and GSR projects could result in an 

increase of construction-related vibration levels at sensitive receptors. However, the proposed 

GSR project components would have approximately the same setbacks from sensitive receptors 

as the PPSU project components and would use similar types of construction equipment (Zhang, 

2012); the resulting cumulative levels would not exceed the potential damage threshold. 

Therefore, the cumulative impact would be less than significant. 

At the common staging area, the concurrent activities from the PPSU and GSR projects could 

result in an increase of construction-related vibration levels at sensitive receptors. However, 

because of the distance between the boundaries of the two projects and the nearby sensitive 

receptors, the combined vibration levels would be below the potential damage threshold at the 

sensitive receptors. Therefore, the cumulative impact would be less than significant. 




5.7 Noise 


AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials), 2009. 

Evaluation of Transportation-Related Earthborne Vibrations, Publication No. R 8-96 (2009). 

Caltrans (California Department of Transportation), 1998. Technical Noise Supplement, prepared 

by Noise, Air Quality, and Hazardous Waste Management Office. October. 

Caltrans (California Department of Transportation), 2004. Transportation and Construction- 

Induced Vibration Guidance Manual, prepared by Jones & Stokes, Publication No. J&S 02-039. 

City of Millbrae, 2011. City of Millbrae Municipal Code, Chapter 6.25, Community Preservation. 

Adopted October 11, 2011. 

City of San Bruno, 1998. City of San Bruno Municipal Code, Chapter 6.16, Noise Regulations. 

Adopted October 2011. 

City of South San Francisco, 1990. City of South San Francisco Municipal Code, Chapter 8.32, 

Noise Regulations. Adopted October 2011. 

Foreman, John E.K., 1990. Sound Analysis and Noise Control. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New 

York. 

FHWA (Federal Highway Administration), 2006. Construction Noise Handbook, Publication 

No. FHWA-HEP-06-015. 

FTA (Federal Transit Administration), 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, 

Publication No. FTA-VA-90-1003-06. 

Godwin Pumps of America, 2005. Critically-Silenced Dri-Prime Pumps Engineering Data, 

Engineering Catalog, Issue 4. 

Harris, Cyril M., 1998. Handbook of Acoustical Measurements and Noise Control, Third Edition. 

McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York. 

Health and Safety Laboratory, 2008. Noise Emissions and Exposure From Mobile Wood 

Chippers, Publication No. RR618. 

Kalkin, Susy, 2013. Personal communication between Susy Kalkin, Chief Planner, City of South 

San Francisco, and Hannah Young, URS. January 2. 

Long, Marshall, 2006. Architectural Acoustics. Published by Elsevier Academic Press. 



San Mateo County, 1990. County of San Mateo Municipal Code, Chapter 4.88, Noise Control. 

Adopted June 2012. 




5.7 Noise 




Town of Colma, 2010. Town of Colma Municipal Code, Chapter 5.04.120, Regulations. Adopted 

March 2010. 

U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 1971. Noise from Construction Equipment 

and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances, Publication No. EPA NTID300.1. 

December. 

U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 1974. Information on Levels of Environmental 

Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety, 

Publication No. EPA 550/9-74-004. March. 


Project Manager, and Hannah Young, URS, regarding the Regional Groundwater Storage and 

Recovery Project. December 20. 






This section addresses the air quality impacts that could result from implementation of the 

proposed Peninsula Pipelines Seismic Upgrade (PPSU) project. The principal air emissions 

generated by the proposed project would be short term in nature and associated with the 

construction of project facilities. Impacts specific to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change 

are evaluated in Section 5.9, Greenhouse Gas Emissions. 

5.8.1 Setting 

The project sites are located in San Mateo County in the Town of Colma and the cities of South 

San Francisco, San Bruno, and Millbrae. The project areas are within the San Francisco Bay Area 

Air Basin (SFBAAB), which comprises all of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, 

San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties, as well as the southern portion of Sonoma County and the 

southwest portion of Solano County. Ambient concentrations of air pollutants in the project area 

are a product of the quantity of pollutants emitted by local sources, and the atmosphere’s ability 

to transport and dilute such emissions. Natural factors that affect air quality and pollutant 

transport and dilution include terrain, wind, atmospheric stability, and the presence of sunlight. 

5.8.1.1 Meteorology 

The peninsula region of the SFBAAB extends from the area northwest of San Jose to the Golden 

Gate. The Santa Cruz Mountains extend up the center of the peninsula, with elevations exceeding 

2,000 feet at the south end, and gradually decreasing to an elevation of 500 feet in South San 

Francisco, where it terminates. San Francisco is at the north end of the peninsula and because 

most of the topography of San Francisco is below 200 feet, the marine layer is able to flow across 

most of the city, making its climate relatively cool and windy. 

Average maximum and minimum winter (i.e., January) temperatures in the project areas are 

56 and 42 degrees Fahrenheit (ºF), respectively, while average summer (i.e., July) maximum and 

minimum temperatures are 72 and 54 ºF, respectively. Precipitation at the project areas averages 

approximately 20 inches per year. Annual average wind speeds range from 5 to 10 miles per hour 

(mph) throughout the peninsula. 

5.8.1.2 Ambient Air Quality 

The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) operates a regional monitoring 

network that measures the ambient concentrations of six criteria air pollutants: ozone, carbon 

monoxide (CO), particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter (PM10), particulate 

matter less than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and sulfur 

dioxide (SO2). Existing and probable future air quality in the project area can best be inferred by 

examining ambient air quality measurements taken by the BAAQMD at its San Francisco– 

Arkansas Street monitoring station over the past 3 years. The San Francisco-Arkansas Street 

monitoring station is the closest station to the project areas, 6 miles north of the Colma site 

(northernmost site) and 10 miles north of the Millbrae site (southernmost site). Table 5.8-1 

presents a 3-year summary of monitoring data (2009–2011) from the San Francisco–Arkansas 





Table 5.8-1 

San Francisco-Arkansas Street Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Summary 2009-2011 

Ozone 

Pollutant 

Most 

Stringent 

Applicable 

Standard 

Number of Days Standards were Exceeded 

and Maximum Concentrations Measured 

2009 2010 2011 

Maximum 1-hour concentration (ppm) 0.072 0.079 0.070 

Days 1-hour standard exceeded >0.09 ppm 1 0 0 0 




Carbon Monoxide 



Days 1-hour standards exceeded >20 ppm 1 0 0 0 

Days 8-hour standards exceeded >9 ppm 1,2 0 0 0 

Nitrogen Dioxide 



Suspended Particulates (PM10) 

Maximum 24-hour concentration (μg/m 3 ) 36.0 39.7 45.6 

Days 24-hour standard exceeded >50 μg/m 3 1 0 0 0 

Days 24-hour standard exceeded >150 μg/m 3 2 0 0 0 

Suspended Fine Particulates (PM2.5) 

Maximum 24-hour concentration (μg/m 3 ) 35.5 45.3 47.5 

Days 24-hour standard exceeded >35 μg/m 3 1 3 2 

Annual Average (μg/m 3 ) - 10.5 9.5 

Annual standard exceeded? >12 μg/m 3 1 - No No 

Sources: CARB, 2009 to 2011; U.S. EPA, 2009 to 2011. 

Notes: 

1 State Standard, not to be exceeded. 

2 Federal standard, not to be exceeded. 

"-" indicates that data are not available 

μg/m 3 = micrograms per cubic meter 

ppm = parts per million 





Street monitoring station, and compares measured maximum pollutant concentrations against 

the most stringent applicable ambient air quality standards (both State and federal standards are 

described below in Section 5.8.2). SO2 is not included in the table because this pollutant was not 

monitored at the San Francisco–Arkansas Street monitoring station. 

Ozone 

Ozone is a secondary air pollutant produced in the atmosphere through a complex series of 

photochemical reactions involving reactive organic gases (ROG) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX). 

The main sources of NOX and ROG, often referred to as ozone precursors, are combustion 

processes (including motor vehicle engines) and the evaporation of solvents, paints, and fuels. 

Automobiles are the single largest source of ozone precursors in the Bay Area. Ozone is a 

regional air pollutant because its precursors are transported and diffused by wind concurrently 

with ozone production through the photochemical reaction process, resulting in the regional 

dispersion of ozone. Ozone causes eye irritation, airway constriction, and shortness of breath, 

and can aggravate existing respiratory diseases such as asthma, bronchitis, and emphysema 

(BAAQMD, 2011a). Table 5.8-1 shows that, according to published data, the more stringent 

applicable standards have not been exceeded during the past 3 years. 

Carbon Monoxide 

CO is an odorless, colorless gas usually formed as the result of the incomplete combustion of 

fuels. The single largest source of CO is motor vehicles; the highest emissions occur during low 

travel speeds, stop-and-go driving, cold starts, and hard acceleration. Exposure to high 

concentrations of CO reduces the oxygen-carrying capacity of the blood and can cause headaches, 

dizziness, fatigue, unconsciousness, and even death (BAAQMD, 2011a). Table 5.8-1 shows that 

no exceedances of CO standards were recorded at the San Francisco–Arkansas Street monitoring 

station between 2009 and 2011. Maximum 8-hour CO levels average less than 25 percent of the 

allowable 8-hour standard. 

Suspended and Inhalable Particulate Matter 

Particulate matter is a class of air pollutants that consists of solid and liquid airborne particles in 

an extremely small size range. Particulate matter is measured in two size ranges: PM10 for 

particles less than 10 microns in diameter, and PM2.5 for particles less than 2.5 microns in 

diameter. Motor vehicles generate about half of all Bay Area particulates, through tailpipe 

emissions as well as brake pad and tire wear. Another large source of fine particulates is wood 

burning in fireplaces and stoves. Fine particulates small enough to be inhaled into the deepest 

parts of the human lung can cause adverse health effects. Extended exposure to particulate 

matter can increase the risk of chronic respiratory disease. PM2.5 poses an increased health risk 

because the particles can deposit deep in the lungs, and they contain substances that are 

particularly harmful to human health (BAAQMD, 2011a). 

Diesel exhaust is an important concern in the Bay Area and throughout California. The California 

Air Resources Board (CARB) identified diesel particulate matter (DPM) as a toxic air contaminant 

(TAC), and DPM has also been identified as a human carcinogen. The exhaust from diesel 

engines includes hundreds of different gaseous and particulate components, many of which are 

toxic. Many of these toxic compounds adhere to the diesel soot particles, which are very small 





and can penetrate deeply into the lungs. Several medical research studies have linked near-road 

pollution exposure to a variety of adverse health outcomes impacting children and adults, 

including significant allergic response and elevated production of specific antibodies (BAAQMD, 

2011a). 

Table 5.8-1 shows that no exceedances of the State PM10 standard occurred at the San Francisco– 

Arkansas Street monitoring station over the last 3 years. The less stringent federal 24-hour PM10 

standard, therefore, was also not exceeded during this period. 

In 2006, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) revised the standard for PM2.5, 

which represents the fine fraction of particulate matter. California’s annual average standard 

went into effect in 2003. Table 5.8-1 presents the PM2.5 data from the San Francisco–Arkansas 

Street monitoring station for 2009 through 2011. The federal 24-hour PM2.5 standard was 

exceeded once in 2009, three times in 2010, and twice in 2011. 

Other Criteria Pollutants 

The standards for NO2, SO2, and lead are being met in the SFBAAB, and pollutant trends suggest 

that the air basin will continue to meet these standards for the foreseeable future. 

5.8.1.3 Toxic Air Contaminants 

TACs are a defined set of airborne air pollutants that may pose a present or potential hazard to 

human health. A wide range of sources, from industrial plants to motor vehicles, emit TACs. Like 

PM2.5, TACs can be emitted directly and can also be formed in the atmosphere through reactions 

with different pollutants. The health effects associated with TACs are quite diverse and generally 

are assessed locally, rather than regionally. TACs can cause long-term health effects such as 

cancer, birth defects, neurological damage, asthma, bronchitis or genetic damage; or short-term 

acute effects such as eye watering, respiratory irritation (a cough), running nose, throat pain, and 

headaches. DPM, a component of PM2.5, accounts for more than 80 percent of the inhalation 

cancer risk from TACs in the Bay Area, and is one of the TACs of greatest concern. There are two 

categories of the most common sources of TACs: stationary sources such as backup diesel 

generators, drycleaners, and gasoline stations; and on-road mobile sources from cars and trucks 

on high traffic volume roadways, and off-road mobile sources such as construction equipment, 

ships, and trains. 

In addition to monitoring criteria air pollutants, both the BAAQMD and the CARB operate TAC 

monitoring networks in the San Francisco Bay Area. These stations measure 10 to 15 TACs, 

depending on the specific station. The TACs selected for monitoring are those that have 

traditionally been found in the highest concentrations in ambient air, and therefore tend to 

produce the most significant risk. The San Francisco-Arkansas Street monitoring station measures 

TAC concentrations in addition to criteria pollutants. Average TAC concentrations in at the 

monitoring station were within the range measured at other TAC monitoring stations within the 

SFBAAB (BAAQMD, 2009a). 

In the Bay Area, there are a number of areas where the exposure of sensitive populations to TACs 

is relatively high. These areas are identified by the BAAQMD as Impacted Communities. The 

PPSU project areas are not located within any Impacted Community boundaries. 





Permitted Stationary Sources, Mobile Sources, and Concurrent Construction Projects in 

the Project Vicinity 1 

Stationary emission sources permitted by the BAAQMD and major roadway sources (>10,000 

annual average daily traffic [AADT]) located within 1,000 feet of the project area are listed in 

Table 5.8-2 and shown on Figure 1 in Appendix E. No major nonpermitted sources (e.g., train 

yards, distribution facilities, and high volume fueling stations) are located within 1,000 feet of the 

project area. 

There is only one construction project within the project’s 1,000-foot buffer zone: the Regional 

Groundwater Storage and Recovery (GSR) project, which would be constructed from June 2014 

through May 2016, and would coincide with the project’s construction period. 

Stationary Sources. The screening PM2.5 concentration, cancer risks, and hazards values for 

permitted stationary sources were obtained from the BAAQMD county-specific files for Google 

Earth TM (BAAQMD, 2012b). The BAAQMD gas station cancer risk and chronic hazard distance 

multipliers were used for gas stations, such as the Westborough Chevron, Comino Petroleum, 

Orange Avenue Shell, and the Shelter Creek Chevron. The multiplier is based on the distance 

between the gas station and the nearest sensitive receptor. There was one diesel generator for which 

BAAQMD did not provide screening values. The PM2.5 concentrations, cancer risks, and hazards 

values for that source were included in the cumulative analysis by modeling permitted emission 

rates, provided by the BAAQMD, in Industrial Source Complex Short Term Model 3 (ISCST3). 

Major Roadways. The screening PM2.5 concentration, cancer risks, and hazards values for 

highways and major roadways greater than 10,000 AADT were obtained from the BAAQMD 

county-specific files for Google Earth TM (BAAQMD, 2012b), based on distance from the nearest 

sensitive receptor. Traffic data for major surface roadways were obtained from the California 

Environmental Health Tracking Program traffic tool (CEHTP, 2012). 

Other Construction Projects. As mentioned above, the only construction project within the 

1,000-foot buffer zone that is anticipated to be constructed during the PPSU construction period 

is the GSR project. Two GSR wells are in the vicinity of the Colma site, and three GSR wells are in 

the vicinity of the South San Francisco site. The cancer risk, acute or chronic hazard index, and 

PM2.5 concentrations for these wells were obtained from the GSR Air Quality Technical Report 

(Illingworth and Rodkins, Inc., 2012), and used to estimate construction cumulative health risk 

values. 

5.8.1.4 Sensitive Receptors 

Land uses such as schools, children’s daycare centers, hospitals, and convalescent homes are 

considered to be more sensitive than the general population to poor air quality because the 

population groups associated with these uses have increased susceptibility to respiratory distress. 

People engaged in strenuous work or exercise are also more sensitive to poor air quality. 

1 Permitted stationary sources, mobile sources, and concurrent construction projects in the project vicinity are analyzed 

together with the PPSU project in Section 5.8.3.6, Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Measures. 





Table 5.8-2 

Permitted Stationary, Mobile, and Concurrent Construction Project Emissions Sources in the Project Vicinity 1 

Nearby Sources 5 

Annual Cancer 

Average PM2.5 Risk (per Chronic 

Project Site 

Plant Number/Plant Name 

(μg/m 3 ) million) Hazard Project Name 

Colma Site G11198: Lexus of Serramonte N/A 8.722 0.012 Regional 



(including 

common staging 

area) 


Site 


Site 

8758: Serramonte Ford Body Shop 0.018 0.000 0.000 

12251: G & M Auto Body 0.000 0.040 0.000 

12368: Honda of Serramonte 0.000 0.000 0.000 

G8650: Home of Peace Cemetery N/A 0.222 0.000 

El Camino Real 2 0.077 2.571 0.030 

Serramonte Boulevard 2 0.034 1.161 0.030 

Groundwater 

Storage and 

Recovery Project 7 

G11428: 6 Westborough Chevron N/A 0.331 0.001 Regional 

19316: 4 Access Properties LLC 0.000 0.008 0.000 

El Camino Real 2 0.020 0.804 0.030 

Westborough Boulevard 2 0.204 5.903 0.030 

5611: Daland Body Shop 0.000 0.000 0.000 

14240: SFPUC Water Supply and Treatment Division 0.104 58.80 0.021 

19842: Chestnut Cleaners 0.000 7.490 0.020 

G11391: 6 Camino Petroleum N/A 0.214 0.019 

G12394: 6 Orange Avenue Shell N/A 0.149 0.013 

Groundwater 

Storage and 

Recovery Project 7 

Nearby Construction Projects 

Annual 

Average PM2.5 

(μg/m 3 ) 

Cancer 

Risk (per 

million) 

Chronic 

Hazard 

0.010 1.1 0.18 

0.070 7.9 0.46 

G3134: 6 Shelter Creek Chevron N/A 0.618 0.001 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

I-280 3 0.118 6.843 0.009 

16280: Verizon Wireless Highway 35/280 0.003 11.140 0.004 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

I-280 3 0.034 2.008 0.002 

Millbrae Site G7549: Green Hills Country Club N/A 0.635 0.001 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Sources: BAAQMD, 2012b; Illingworth and Rodkins, Inc., 2012. 

Notes: 

1 

Permitted stationary sources, mobile sources, and concurrent construction projects in the project vicinity are analyzed together with the PPSU project in Section 5.8.3.6, 

Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Measures. 

2 

Roadway annual average PM2.5 and cancer risk for surface streets >10,000 AADT were estimated from screening tables provided by BAAQMD (BAAQMD, 2012b) and traffic data from the California 

Environmental Health Tracking Program traffic tool (CEHTP, 2012). The maximum acute and chronic HI for roadways will be less than 0.03 μg/m 3 . 

3 

Interstate annual average PM2.5, cancer risk, and chronic hazard values were estimated from the BAAQMD highway screening analysis tool for San Mateo County (BAAQMD, 2012b). 

4 

For Source #19316, URS was provided average daily emissions, and not annual average PM2.5, cancer risk, or chronic hazard. Consequently, the annual PM2.5 concentration, cancer risk, and chronic hazard 

were estimated by assuming this source was located at the construction site, and the same ratio methodology described in footnote 4 was used to calculate a worst case impact. 

5 

Some nearby sources emit PM2.5, but in quantities below the significant figures reported to the BAAQMD. These are represented by zero. Sources that do not emit PM2.5 (e.g., gas stations) have N/A for 

PM2.5 concentrations. In addition, for cancer risk and chronic hazard, some sites register values below the significant figures used by the BAAQMD. 

6 

The BAAQMD gas station cancer risk and chronic hazard distance multipliers were used where appropriate using the distance between the gas station and the nearest sensitive receptor. 

7 

GSR wells 8 and 17 (alternate) are in the vicinity of the Colma site, and GSR wells 11, 12, and 19 (alternate) are in the vicinity of the South San Francisco site. 

AADT = annual average daily traffic I-280 = Interstate 280 SFPUC = San Francisco Public Utilities Commission 

BAAQMD = Bay Area Air Quality Management District 


HI = hazard index 

PM2.5 = particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter 





Residential areas are considered more sensitive to air quality conditions than commercial and 

industrial areas because people generally spend longer periods of time at their residences, 

resulting in greater exposure to ambient air quality conditions. Recreational uses or parks are also 

considered sensitive due to the greater exposure to ambient air quality conditions, and because 

the presence of pollution detracts from the recreational experience. 

All sites, with the exception of the Colma site, are located within residential areas. Figures 2 

through 6 in Appendix E identify the sensitive receptors within 1,000 feet of the sites. 

As shown on Figure 2 in Appendix E, sensitive receptors at the Colma site include Home Sweet 

Home assisted living center and the adjacent residence along El Camino Real, east of the 

construction zone. 

As shown on Figure 3 in Appendix E, sensitive receptors within the 1,000-foot buffer at the South 

San Francisco site are residences along West Orange Avenue, Fairway Drive, and Southwood 

Drive to the south of the project construction zone and east of the staging and spoils area; and 

residences along Arroyo Drive, Alta Mesa Drive, Indio Drive, Del Monte Drive, Camaritas 

Avenue, Del Paso Drive, Hermosa Lane, and Chico Court to the north of the project construction 

zone and the staging and spoils area. There are also residences along A Street, B Street, and 

C Street to the south of the project construction area and west of the staging and spoils area. 

Other sensitive receptors identified on Figure 3 within the 1,000-foot buffer zone include the 

Westborough Royale Assisted Living Center and Our Redeemers Lutheran Church. Baden High 

School, South San Francisco Adult School, and Los Cerritos Elementary School are located just 

outside the 1,000-foot buffer zone. 

As shown on Figure 4 in Appendix E, sensitive receptors within a 1,000-foot buffer zone at the 

San Bruno North site include residences along Crestwood Drive, Cunningham Highway, and 

Hawthorne Avenue to the east of the project construction zone and the staging and spoils area; 

residences along Cedarwood Court, Hickory Avenue, Juniper Avenue, Holly Avenue, and 

Pepper Drive to the east of the project construction zone and the staging and spoils area; and the 

Shelter Creek condominiums to the southwest of the project construction zone. 

As shown on Figure 5 in Appendix E, the San Bruno South site includes sensitive receptors 

within a 1,000-foot buffer zone, such as residences along Rosewood Drive, Madison Avenue, and 

Glenbrook Lane to the west of the project construction zone and the staging and spoils area; the 

Peninsula High School 2 to the south of the project construction zone and the staging and spoils 

area; and the San Bruno Chinese Church to the east of the project staging and spoil area. 

As shown on Figure 6 in Appendix E, sensitive receptors near the construction area and the 

staging and spoils areas at the Millbrae site include the residences along Lomita Avenue, 

Terrance Drive, Ridgewood Drive, Robin Lane, Brookside Lane, Glenwood Drive, Fernwood 

Drive, Elmwood Drive, Oakwood Lane, and Banbury Lane to the west of the project construction 

zone and the staging and spoils area; residences along Parkview Drive, Bayview Avenue, Santa 

Barbara Avenue, Guadalupe Avenue, and Santa Margarita Avenue to the east of the project 

2 Other uses at the Peninsula High School, in addition to the continuation high school, include Crayon College (a 

daycare), Central Peninsula Church, and San Bruno Community Services sports activities on the athletic fields. 





staging and spoils area; and residences along Ridgewood Drive, Helen Drive, and Evergreen 

Way to the south of the project construction zone and the staging and spoils area. Other notable 

sensitive receptors within the 1,000-foot area of the emission sources at the Millbrae site include 

the Glen Oaks Montessori School and Millbrae Montessori School north of the construction zone. 

Meadows Elementary School is identified as a sensitive receptor on Figure 6 in Appendix E, even 

though it is outside of the 1,000-foot buffer zone, because of potential impacts given the 

proximity to the project. 3 


5.8.2.1 Federal and State Regulations 

The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970 established national ambient air quality standards, and 

individual states retained the option to adopt more stringent standards and to include other 

pollution sources. California had already established its own air quality standards when federal 

standards were established, and because of the unique meteorological problems in California, 

there is considerable diversity between the State and national ambient air quality standards, as 

shown in Table 5.8-3. California ambient standards tend to be at least as protective as national 

ambient standards, and are often more stringent. 

The ambient air quality standards are intended to protect the public health and welfare, and they 

specify the concentration of pollutants (with an adequate margin of safety) to which the public 

can be exposed without adverse health effects. They are designed to protect those segments of the 

public most susceptible to respiratory distress, known as sensitive receptors, including 

asthmatics, the very young, the elderly, people weak from other illness or disease, or people 

engaged in strenuous work or exercise. Healthy adults can tolerate occasional exposure to air 

pollution levels that are somewhat above the ambient air quality standards before adverse health 

effects are observed. 

Federal Clean Air Act 

The 1977 Clean Air Act (last amended in 1990; United States Code, Title 42, Section 7401 et seq.) 

requires that regional planning and air pollution control agencies prepare a regional air quality 

plan to outline the measures by which both stationary and mobile sources of pollutants will be 

controlled to achieve all standards within the deadlines specified in the Clean Air Act. 

In 1982, the Association of Bay Area Governments, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 

and the BAAQMD jointly prepared the Bay Area Air Quality Plan for the SFBAAB. The plan 

predicted attainment of the federal clean air standards within the air basin by 1987; however, 

federal clean air standards were not attained throughout the entire air basin until 1991. The Bay 

3 Meadows Elementary School is located approximately 1,200 feet from the emission sources at the Millbrae site. 

BAAQMD guidance states that impacts to sensitive receptors within the 1,000-foot area of the project site should be 

analyzed. Even though the school falls outside the 1,000-foot buffer zone, the school was conservatively included in the 

health risk analysis because of its proximity to the project and the construction access routes. 





Table 5.8-3 

State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards and SFBAAB Attainment Status 

State Standards 1 Federal Standards 2 

Pollutant 

Averaging Time 

Concentration 

Attainment 

Status Concentration 3 

Attainment 

Status 

Ozone 1 hour 0.09 ppm 

(180 μg/m 3 ) 

N N/A – 

8 hour 0.07 ppm 

(137 μg/m 3 ) 

N 

0.075 ppm 

(147 μg/m 3 ) 

N 4 

Carbon Monoxide 1 hour 20 ppm 

(23 mg/m 3 ) 

A 

35 ppm 

(40 mg/m 3 ) 

A 

8 hour 9 ppm 

(10 mg/m 3 ) 

A 

9 ppm 

(10 mg/m 3 ) 

A 

Nitrogen Dioxide 1 hour 0.18 ppm 

(339 μg/m 3 ) 

A 0.10 ppm 5 U 

Annual 

arithmetic mean 

0.030 ppm 

(57 μg/m 3 ) 

N/A 

0.053 ppm 

(100 μg/m 3 ) 

A 

Sulfur Dioxide 6 1 hour 0.25 ppm 

(655 μg/m 3 ) 

A 

0.075 ppm 

(196 μg/m 3 ) 

A 

24 hour 0.04 ppm 

(105 μg/m 3 ) 

A 

0.14 ppm 

(365 mg/m 3 ) 

A 

Annual 


N/A – 0.03 ppm 

(80 mg/m 3 ) 

A 

Particulate Matter 

(PM10) 

Fine Particulate Matter 

(PM2.5) 

24 hour 50 μg/m 3 N 150 μg/m 3 U 

Annual 


20 μg/m 3 N N/A – 

24 hour N/A – 35 μg/m 3 7 N 

Annual 


12 μg/m 3 N 15 μg/m 3 A 

Sulfates 24 hour 25 μg/m 3 A N/A – 

Lead 8 30 day average 1.5 μg/m 3 – N/A A 

Calendar quarter N/A – 1.5 μg/m 3 A 

Rolling 3 month 

average 9 

N/A – 0.15 μg/m 3 9 

Hydrogen Sulfide 1 hour 0.03 ppm 

(42 μg/m 3 ) 

U N/A – 





Table 5.8-3 

State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards and SFBAAB Attainment Status (Continued) 

State Standards 1 Federal Standards 2 

Pollutant 

Averaging Time 

Concentration 

Attainment 

Status Concentration 3 

Attainment 

Status 

Vinyl Chloride 8 24 hour 0.01 ppm 

(26 μg/m 3 ) 

– N/A – 

Source: BAAQMD, 2012a 

Notes: 

1 

State ambient air quality standards (California). The State standards for ozone, carbon monoxide (except Lake Tahoe), sulfur dioxide 

(1-hour and 24-hour), nitrogen dioxide, and suspended particulate matter (PM10) are values that are not to be exceeded. All other State 

standards shown are values not to be equaled or exceeded. If the standard is for a 1-hour, 8-hour or 24-hour average (i.e., all standards 

except for lead and the PM10 annual standard), then some measurements may be excluded. In particular, measurements are excluded 

that the CARB determined would occur less than once per year on the average. 

2 

National ambient air quality standards. National standards shown are the “primary standards” designed to protect public health. 

National standards, other than for ozone and particulates, and those based on annual averages or annual arithmetic means, are not to 

be exceeded more than once a year. The 1-hour ozone standard is attained if, during the most recent 3-year period, the average number 

of days per year with maximum hourly concentrations above the standard is equal to or less than one. The 8-hour ozone standard is 

attained when the 3-year average of the fourth highest daily concentration is 0.075 ppm (775 ppb) or less. The 24-hour PM10 standard is 

attained when the 3-year average of the 99th percentile of monitored concentrations is less than 150 μg/m 3 . The 24-hour PM2.5 standard 

is attained when the 3-year average of 98th percentile is less than 35 μg/m 3 . 

3 

National air quality standards are set by U.S. EPA at levels determined to be protective of public health with an adequate margin of safety. 

4 

In early January 2010, the U.S. EPA proposed a stricter air quality standard for ground level ozone. The new ozone proposal would set 

the primary smog standard at a level between 0.060 and 0.070 ppm measured over an 8-hour period. The U.S. EPA released a draft 

ambient air quality standard preamble for ozone in July 2011, but no standards have been finalized as of February 2013. 

5 

To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the daily maximum 1-hour average at each monitor within an area 

must not exceed 0.100 ppm (effective January 22, 2010). 

6 

On June 2, 2010, the U.S. EPA established a new 1-hour SO2 standard, effective August 23, 2010, which is based on the 3-year average 

of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations. The existing 0.030 ppm annual and 0.14 ppm 24-hour SO2 

national standards must continue to be used, however, until 1 year following U.S. EPA initial designations of the new 1-hour SO2 

national standard. The 1971 SO2 national standards (24-hour and annual) remain in effect until 1 year after an area is designated for 

the 2010 standard, except that in areas designated nonattainment for the 1971 standards, the 1971 standards remain in effect until 

implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2010 standards are approved. 

7 

The U.S. EPA designated the SFBAAB as nonattainment of the PM2.5 standard on October 8, 2009. The effective date of the designation 

is December 14, 2009, and the BAAQMD has 3 years to develop SIP that demonstrates the SFBAAB will achieve the revised standard 

by December 14, 2014. CARB revised the SIP on December 6, 2012, and submitted it to the U.S. EPA on January 14, 2013. 

8 

The CARB has identified lead and vinyl chloride as “toxic air contaminants” with no threshold level of exposure below which there are 

no adverse health effects determined. 

9 

National lead standard, rolling 3-month average: final rule signed October 15, 2008. Final designations effective December 31, 2011. 

A = attainment; N = nonattainment; U = unclassified; N/A = not applicable or no applicable standard; – = not indicated or no information 

available 

CARB = California Air Resources Board 


mg/m 3 = milligrams per cubic meter 

PM10 = particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter 


ppb = parts per billion 


SFBAAB = San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin 

SIP = State Implementation Plan 

SO2 = sulfur dioxide 

U.S. EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 





Area Air Quality Plan was incorporated into California’s State Implementation Plan (SIP), a plan 

required under the federal Clean Air Act. A SIP must contain control strategies that demonstrate 

attainment of national ambient air quality standards by specific Clean Air Act deadlines. 

The SFBAAB’s current attainment status with respect to federal standards is summarized in 

Table 5.8-3. In general, the Bay Area experiences low concentrations of most pollutants when 

compared to federal standards, except for ozone and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), for 

which standards are exceeded periodically. The SFBAAB’s attainment status for ozone has 

changed several times over the past decade, first from “nonattainment” to “attainment” in 1995, 

then back to “unclassified nonattainment” in 1998 for the 1-hour federal ozone standard. In June 

2004, the Bay Area was designated as “marginal nonattainment” for the 8-hour ozone standard. 

In 2008, the U.S. EPA lowered the 8-hour ozone standard from 0.08 part per million (ppm) to 

0.075 ppm. As a designated “marginal” nonattainment area for the federal 8-hour ozone 

standard, preparation of a SIP is currently not required. 

California Clean Air Act 

In 1988, California passed the California Clean Air Act (California Health and Safety Code 

Section 39600 et seq.), which, like its federal counterpart, called for the designation of areas as 

attainment or nonattainment, but based on the State ambient air quality standards rather than the 

federal standards. The attainment status of the SFBAAB with respect to State standards is 

summarized in Table 5.8-3. As shown in the table, the Bay Area experiences low concentrations of 

most pollutants when compared to State standards, except for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5, for which 

standards are exceeded periodically. The California Clean Air Act requires that air districts in 

which State air quality standards are exceeded must prepare a plan that documents reasonable 

progress towards attainment. A 3-year update is required. In the Bay Area, this planning process 

is incorporated into the Clean Air Plan (CAP) (BAAQMD, 2010a), and the BAAQMD adopted the 

CAP in 2010 (see discussion below under the heading Bay Area Air Quality Management Basin). 

California Air Resources Board 

The CARB is the State agency responsible for regulating air quality. Its responsibilities include 

establishing State ambient air quality standards, emissions standards, and regulations for mobile 

emissions sources (e.g., autos and trucks), in addition to overseeing the efforts of countywide and 

multi-county air pollution control districts, which have primary responsibility over stationary 

sources. The emission standards most relevant to the proposed project are those related to onand 

off-road heavy-duty diesel engines. The CARB also regulates vehicle fuels with the intent of 

reducing emissions; it has set emission reduction performance requirements for gasoline 

(California reformulated gasoline), and limited the sulfur and aromatic content of diesel fuel to 

make it burn cleaner. The CARB also sets the standards used to pass or fail vehicles in smogcheck 

and heavy-duty truck inspection programs. In 2005, the CARB approved the Airborne 

Toxic Control Measure to Limit Diesel-Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling to reduce 

emissions of toxic and criteria pollutants by limiting the idling of new heavy-duty diesel vehicles, 

which altered five sections of Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR). The relevant 

changes with respect to the proposed project are in Section 2485. Pertinent requirements of the 

measure include: 





(c) The driver of any vehicle subject to this section: 

1. shall not idle the vehicle’s primary diesel engine for greater than 5 minutes at 

any location, except as noted below; and 

2. shall not operate a diesel-fueled auxiliary power system to power a heater, air 

conditioner, or any ancillary equipment on that vehicle during sleeping or 

resting in a sleeper berth for greater than five minutes at any location when 

within 100 feet of a restricted area, except as noted below. 

“Restricted area” means any real property zoned for individual or 

multifamily housing that has one or more such units. There are 12 exceptions 

to this requirement (e.g., emergency situations, military, adverse weather 

conditions, etc.), including when a vehicle’s power takeoff is being used to 

run pumps, blowers, or other equipment; when a vehicle is stuck in traffic, 

stopped at a light, or under direction of a police officer; when a vehicle is 

queuing beyond 100 feet from any restricted area; and when an engine is 

being tested, serviced, or repaired. 


Bay Area Air Quality Management District 

The BAAQMD replaced its former guidelines (December 1999) by issuing the California 

Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Air Quality Guidelines, including Air Quality CEQA 

Thresholds of Significance, in June 2010 and updating them in May 2011 with new risk and 

hazard thresholds for sensitive receptors (BAAQMD, 2010b; BAAQMD, 2011a). The guidelines 

include new thresholds of significance to assist lead agencies in determining when potential air 

quality impacts would be considered significant under CEQA. These guidelines include 

recommendations for analytical methodologies to determine air quality impacts and identify 

mitigation measures that can be used to avoid or reduce air quality impacts. 

BAAQMD’s guidelines include procedures for evaluating whether a project’s construction and 

operational criteria pollutant emissions would result in a significant air quality impact, along 

with mitigation to reduce or eliminate any significant air impacts. BAAQMD’s guidelines also 

include procedures for evaluating TAC impacts resulting from project construction and 

operation. These procedures consist of a step-by-step approach for determining whether a 

project’s TAC emissions would result in significant acute, chronic, or carcinogenic health risks. 

The BAAQMD’s adoption of significance thresholds for air quality analysis in 2010 and 2011 were the 

subject of judicial actions, and adoption of the thresholds has been set aside. However, SF Planning 

has determined that Appendix D of the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, in combination 

with BAAQMD’s Revised Draft Options and Justification Report (BAAQMD, 2009b), provide 

substantial evidence to support the BAAQMD recommended thresholds. Therefore, the Planning 

Department has determined they are appropriate for use in this analysis as standards of significance. 

A more detailed discussion of BAAQMD’s significance thresholds and the recommended analysis 

methodologies used in this analysis are described in the impact assessment section below. 








impacts related to air quality, but generally considers that implementation of the proposed 

project would have a significant impact if it were to: 

 

 

 

 

 

Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan; 

Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air 

quality violation; 

Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the 

project region is in nonattainment under an applicable federal, State, or regional ambient air 

quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for 

ozone precursors); 

Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; or 

Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. 


Due to the general nature of the CEQA Appendix G checklist thresholds, BAAQMD developed 

the following quantitative CEQA thresholds, which are being used in this analysis and are 

described in Section 5.8.2.2 above. This section discusses the thresholds for determining whether 

a project would result in a significant air quality impact. Table 5.8-4 summarizes the air quality 

thresholds of significance, followed by a discussion of each threshold. 

Ozone Precursors. As discussed previously, the SFBAAB is currently designated as 

nonattainment for ozone and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5). Ozone is a secondary air 

pollutant produced in the atmosphere through a complex series of photochemical reactions 

involving ROG and NOX. The BAAQMD is the primary regulatory agency in the SFBAAB 

charged with ensuring that the region attains applicable federal and State ambient air quality 

standards. The potential for a project to result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in 

criteria air pollutants, which may contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation, is 

based on the State and federal Clean Air Acts emissions limits for stationary sources. The federal 

New Source Review (NSR) program was created by the federal Clean Air Act to ensure that 

stationary sources of air pollution are constructed in a manner that is consistent with attainment 

of federal health-based ambient air quality standards. Similarly, to ensure that new stationary 

sources do not cause or contribute to a violation of an air quality standard, BAAQMD 

Regulation 2, Rule 2 requires that any new source that emits criteria air pollutants above a 

specified emissions limit must offset those emissions. For ozone precursors, ROG and NOX, the 

offset emissions level is an annual average of 10 tons per year (or 54 pounds per day) (BAAQMD, 

2009b, page 17). These levels represent emissions by which new sources are not anticipated to 

contribute to an air quality violation or result in a considerable net increase in criteria air 

pollutants. 





Table 5.8-4 

Air Quality Significance Thresholds 

Construction Thresholds 

Operational Thresholds 

Pollutant 

Average Daily Emissions 

(pounds/day) 

Average Daily 

Emissions 

(pounds/day) 

Annual Average 

Emissions 

(tons/year) 

Criteria Air Pollutants 

ROG 54 54 10 

NOX 54 54 10 

PM10 82 1 82 15 

PM2.5 54 1 54 10 

CO Not Applicable 9.0 ppm (8-hour average) or 20.0 ppm 

(1-hour average) 

Fugitive Dust 

Construction Dust Ordinance 

or other Best Management 

Practices 

Not Applicable 

Health Risks and Hazards for New Sources 

Excess Cancer Risk 10 per one million 10 per one million 

Chronic or Acute 

Hazard Index 

Incremental annual 

average PM2.5 

1.0 1.0 

0.3 μg/m 3 0.3 μg/m 3 

Health Risks and Hazards for Sensitive Receptors (Cumulative from all sources within 

1,000-foot zone of influence) and Cumulative Thresholds for New Sources 

Excess Cancer Risk 

100 per one million 

Chronic Hazard Index 10.0 

Annual Average PM2.5 0.8 μg/m 3 

Source: BAAQMD, 2010b. 

Notes: 

1 PM10 and PM2.5 thresholds for construction apply only to exhaust emissions and do not include the fugitive dust 

component. 

CO = carbon monoxide 


NOX = oxides of nitrogen 

PM10 = particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter 



ROG = reactive organic gas 





Although this regulation applies to new or modified stationary sources, land use development 

projects result in ROG and NOX emissions as a result of increases in vehicle trips, architectural 

coating, and construction activities. Therefore, the thresholds discussed above can be applied to 

the construction and operational phases of land use projects, and those projects that result in 

emissions below these thresholds would not be considered to contribute to an existing or 

projected air quality violation or result in a considerable net increase in ROG and NOX emissions. 

Because construction activities are temporary in nature, only the average daily thresholds are 

applicable to construction phase emissions. 

Particulate Matter (PM10 and PM2.5). The BAAQMD has not established an offset limit for PM2.5, 

and the current federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration offset limit of 100 tons per year for 

PM10 is too high and would not be an appropriate significance threshold for the SFBAAB 

considering the nonattainment status of PM10. However, the emissions limits provided for in the 

federal NSR that apply to stationary sources that emit criteria air pollutants in areas that are 

currently designated as nonattainment is an appropriate significance threshold. For PM10 and 

PM2.5, the emissions limit under NSR is 15 tons per year (82 pounds per day) and 10 tons per year 

(54 pounds per day), respectively. These emissions limits represent levels at which a source is not 

expected to have an impact on air quality (BAAQMD, 2009b, page 16). Similar to ozone precursor 

thresholds identified above, land use development projects typically result in particulate matter 

emissions as a result of increases in vehicle trips, space heating and natural gas combustion, 

landscape maintenance, and construction activities. Therefore, the thresholds discussed above 

can be applied to the construction and operational phases of a land use project. Those projects 

that result in emissions below the NSR emissions limits would not be considered to contribute to 

an existing or projected air quality violation or result in a considerable net increase in PM10 and 

PM2.5 emissions. Because construction activities are temporary in nature, only the average daily 

thresholds are applicable to construction-phase emissions. 

Other Criteria Pollutants. Regional concentrations of CO in the SFBAAB have not exceeded the 

California ambient air quality standards in the past 11 years, and SO2 concentrations have never 

exceeded the standards. The primary source of CO impacts from land use projects is vehicle 

traffic. Construction-related SO2 emissions represent a negligible portion of the total basin-wide 

emissions, and construction-related CO emissions represent less than 5 percent of the SFBAAB 

total basin-wide CO emissions (BAAQMD, 2009b, page 27). As discussed previously, the 

SFBAAB is designated as attainment for both CO and SO2. Furthermore, the BAAQMD has 

demonstrated that to exceed the California ambient air quality standard of 9.0 ppm (8-hour 

average) or 20.0 ppm (1-hour average) for CO, project traffic in addition to existing traffic would 

need to exceed 44,000 vehicles per hour at affected intersections (or 24,000 vehicles per hour 

where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is limited). Therefore, given the SFBAAB’s attainment 

status and the limited CO and SO2 emissions that could result from land use projects, land use 

projects would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in CO or SO2, and 

quantitative analysis is not required. 

Fugitive Dust. Fugitive dust emissions are typically generated during construction phases. 

Studies have shown that the application of best management practices (BMPs) at construction 

sites significantly control fugitive dust (Western Regional Air Partnership, 2006). Individual 

measures have been shown to reduce fugitive dust by anywhere from 30 percent to 90 percent 

(BAAQMD, 2009b, page 27). The BAAQMD has identified a number of BMPs to control fugitive 





dust emissions from construction activities (BAAQMD, 2011a). The BAAQMD does not require 

quantification of fugitive dust emissions for projects employing fugitive dust control BMPs. 

Health Risks and Hazards from New or Modified Sources. Construction activities typically 

require the use of heavy-duty diesel vehicles and equipment, which emit DPM. CARB identified 

DPM as a TAC in 1998, based on evidence demonstrating cancer effects in humans (CARB, 1998). 

The exhaust from diesel engines includes hundreds of different gaseous and particulate 

components, many of which are toxic. Mobile sources such as trucks and buses are among the 

primary sources of diesel emissions, and concentrations of DPM are higher near heavily traveled 

highways. Other sources of health risks and hazards include gas stations, stationary diesel 

engines (i.e., backup generators), dry cleaners, crematories, spray booths, diesel-fueled railroads, 

major ports, railyards, airports, oil refineries, power plants, and cement plants (BAAQMD, 2011b, 

page 11). Land use projects that require a substantial amount of heavy-duty diesel vehicles and 

equipment, as well as projects that require stationary sources, such as a diesel backup generator, 

would result in emissions of DPM and possibly other TACs that may affect nearby sensitive 

receptors. Construction-phase TACs, however, would be temporary, and current health risk 

modeling methodologies are associated with longer-term exposure periods of 9, 40, and 70 years, 

which do not correlate well with the temporary and highly variable nature of construction 

activities, resulting in difficulties with producing accurate modeling results (BAAQMD, 2009b, 

page 29). Nevertheless, DPM is a known TAC; therefore, appropriate thresholds are identified to 

ensure that a project does not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. 

Similar to criteria pollutant thresholds identified above, the BAAQMD Regulation 2, Rule 5 sets 

cancer risk limits for new and modified sources of TACs at the maximally exposed individual 

(MEI). In addition to cancer risk, some TACs pose noncarcinogenic chronic and acute health 

hazards. Acute and chronic noncancer health hazards are expressed in terms of an HI, which is a 

ratio of the TAC concentration to a reference exposure level (REL), a level below which no 

adverse health effects are expected, even for sensitive individuals (BAAQMD, 2009b, page D-35). 

In accordance with Regulation 2, Rule 5, the BAAQMD Air Pollution Control Officer shall deny 

any permit to operate a source that results in an increased cancer risk of 10 per million, or 

increase in chronic or acute HI of 1.0 at the MEI. This threshold is designed to ensure that the 

source does not contribute to a cumulatively significant health risk impact (BAAQMD, 2011a, 

page D-40). 

In addition, particulate matter, primarily associated with mobile sources (vehicular emissions) is 

strongly associated with mortality, respiratory diseases, and impairment of lung development in 

children, and other endpoints such as hospitalization for cardiopulmonary disease. Based on 

toxicological and epidemiological research, smaller particles and those associated with traffic 

appear more closely related to health effects (San Francisco Department of Public Health, 2008). 

Therefore, estimates of PM2.5 emissions from a new source can be used to approximate broader 

potential adverse health effects. The U.S. EPA has proposed a Significant Impact Level (SIL) for 

PM2.5. For developed urban areas, including much of San Francisco, the U.S. EPA has proposed a 

SIL of between 0.3 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m 3 ) and 0.8 μg/m 3 . The SIL represents the 

level of incremental PM2.5 emissions that represents a significant contribution to regional 

nonattainment (BAAQMD, 2011a, page D-36). The BAAQMD has determined that on balance the 

annual average PM2.5 threshold of 0.3 μg/m 3 will afford the same health protections as required 

by San Francisco’s Health Code Article 38 (BAAQMD, 2011a, page 41). Therefore, the lower range 





of the U.S. EPA’s recommended SIL of 0.3 μg/m 3 is an appropriate threshold for determining the 

significance of a source’s PM2.5 impact. 

In determining the potential distance that emissions from a new source (construction sources or 

operational sources) may affect nearby sensitive receptors, a summary of research findings in 

CARB’s Land Use Compatibility Handbook suggests that air pollutants from high-volume 

roadways are substantially reduced or can even be indistinguishable from upwind background 

concentrations at a distance of 1,000 feet downwind from sources such as freeways and large 

distribution centers (BAAQMD, 2011a, page D-38). Given the scientific data on dispersion of 

TACs from a source, the BAAQMD recommends assessing impacts of sources of TACs on nearby 

receptors within a 1,000-foot radius (BAAQMD, 2011a, page D-40). This radius is also consistent 

with CARB’s Land Use Compatibility Handbook and Health and Safety Code Section 42301.6 

(Notice for Possible Source Near School) (BAAQMD, 2011a, page 40). 

In summary, potential health risks and hazards from new sources on existing or proposed 

sensitive receptors are assessed within a 1,000-foot zone of influence, and risks and hazards from 

new sources that exceed any of the following thresholds at the MEI are determined to be 

significant: excess cancer risk of 10 per one million, chronic or acute HI of 1.0, and annual average 

PM2.5 increase of 0.3 μg/m 3 . 

Cumulative Air Quality Impacts. Regional air quality impacts are by their very nature 

cumulative impacts. Emissions from past, present, and future projects contribute to adverse 

regional air quality impacts on a cumulative basis. No single project by itself would be sufficient 

in size to result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. Instead, a project’s individual 

emissions contribute to existing cumulative adverse air quality impacts (BAAQMD, 2010b). As 

described above, the project-level thresholds for criteria air pollutants are based on levels by 

which new sources are not anticipated to contribute to an air quality violation or result in a 

considerable net increase in criteria air pollutants. Therefore, if a project’s emissions are below 

the project-level thresholds, the project would not be considered to result in a considerable 

contribution to cumulative regional air quality impacts. 

With respect to localized health risks and hazards, as described above, the significance thresholds 

for sensitive receptors represent a cumulative impact analysis, because this analysis considers all 

potential sources that may result in adverse health impacts within a receptor’s zone of influence. 

Similarly, new sources that contribute to health risks and hazards at nearby sensitive receptors 

that exceed these cumulative thresholds would result in a significant health risk and hazards 

impact to existing sensitive receptors. 

Consistency with Applicable Air Quality Plan. As discussed previously, the BAAQMD has 

published the 2010 CAP, representing the most current applicable air quality plan for the 

SFBAAB. Consistency with this plan is the basis for determining whether the proposed project 

would conflict with or obstruct implementation of an applicable air quality plan. 

This analysis evaluates the proposed project’s potential effects on air quality during project 

construction. Construction-related effects on air quality relate strictly to direct and indirect 

impacts that could occur during construction activities, including site preparation and cleaning, 

excavation, dewatering, construction of improvements, and demobilization and site restoration. 

Due to the nature of the project, which entails replacement of underground portions of an 





existing pipeline and restoration of the sites to pre-construction conditions, there are no 

operational impacts associated with the project. There would be no new emission sources added, 

and no substantial changes to current operation; therefore, operation-related effects on air quality 

are not analyzed further. 


The proposed project’s impacts on air quality and the resulting significance determinations are 

summarized in Table 5.8-5. 

Table 5.8-5 

Summary of Impacts – Air Quality 

Impacts 

Impact AQ-1: Project construction could violate air quality 

standards or contribute significantly to an existing air quality 

violation. 

Impact AQ-2: Project construction would not expose sensitive 

receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. 

Impact AQ-3: Project construction would not create objectionable 

odors affecting a substantial number of people. 

Impact AQ-4: Project construction would not conflict with or 

obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. 

Impact C-AQ: Project construction could result in a cumulatively 

considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the 

project region is a nonattainment area for an applicable federal or 

State ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions 

that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). 

Significance 

Determination 

LSM 

LS 

LS 

LS 

LSM 

Note: 




Impact AQ-1: Project construction could violate air quality standards or contribute 

significantly to an existing air quality violation. (Less than Significant with 

Mitigation) 

Criteria Pollutants 

Criteria pollutants would be emitted during construction of all project components. Construction 

is planned to occur over approximately 12 months, from October 2014 through September 2015. 

Criteria pollutants would be generated from the exhaust emissions of construction equipment 

and vehicles. 





The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines require quantification of construction-related emissions 

(equipment exhaust). The BAAQMD’s daily criteria pollutant emissions significance thresholds 

for construction activities, which are the thresholds used for purposes of this analysis, are 

presented in Table 5.8-6. 

Table 5.8-6 

Average Daily Emissions and Total Emissions of Criteria Pollutants During Construction 

Emission Source ROG NOX Exhaust PM10 1 Exhaust PM2.5 1 

Construction Equipment (total tons) 2



Because there are no operational emissions associated with the PPSU project, these thresholds 

apply only to the construction phase of the project. 

Fugitive Dust 

Fugitive dust emissions are typically generated during construction phases. Project construction 

would generate fugitive dust (including PM10 and PM2.5) during various construction activities, 

including excavation, grading, demolition, and vehicle travel on both paved and unpaved 

surfaces. 

Dust can be an irritant causing watering eyes or irritation to the lungs, nose, and throat. 

Demolition, excavation, grading, and other construction activities can cause wind-blown dust to 

add to particulate matter in the local atmosphere. Depending on exposure, adverse health effects 

can occur due to this particulate matter in general and also due to specific contaminants such as 

lead or asbestos that may be constituents of soil. 

Studies have shown that the application of best management practices (BMPs) at construction 

sites significantly control fugitive dust (Western Regional Air Partnership, 2006). Individual 

measures have been shown to reduce fugitive dust by anywhere from 30 to 90 percent 

(BAAQMD, 2009b). The BAAQMD has identified a number of BMPs to control fugitive dust 

emissions from construction activities (BAAQMD, 2011a). 

BAAQMD and this Environmental Impact Report consider uncontrolled fugitive dust from 

construction activities to be significant. Consequently, BAAQMD has developed Basic 

Construction Measures (Mitigation Measure M-AQ-1: BAAQMD Basic Construction Measures) 

that, if implemented, would reduce fugitive dust emissions to less than significant with 

mitigation. 

Mitigation Measure M-AQ-1: BAAQMD Basic Construction Measures 

This mitigation measure applies to all project sites and the common staging area. The 

SFPUC shall post one or more publicly visible signs with the telephone number and 

person to contact at the SFPUC with complaints related to excessive dust or vehicle 

idling. This person shall respond to complaints and, if necessary, take corrective action 

within 48 hours. The telephone number and person to contact at the BAAQMD’s 

Compliance and Enforcement Division shall also be provided on the sign(s) in the event 

that the complainant also wishes to contact the applicable air district. 

In addition, to limit dust, criteria pollutants, and precursor emissions associated with 

project construction, the following BAAQMD-recommended Basic Construction 

Measures shall be included in all construction contract specifications for the proposed 

project: 

 

 

All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and 

unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. 

All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material offsite shall be 

covered. 





 

 

 

 

 

All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using 

wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power 

sweeping is prohibited. 

Vehicle speeds on unpaved areas shall be limited to 15 mph. 

All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as 

possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding 

or soil binders are used. 

Idling times for construction equipment (including vehicles) shall be minimized 

either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling 

time to 5 minutes. Clear signage of this requirement shall be provided for 

construction workers at all access points to construction areas. 

All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance 

with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified 

mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. 

Impact AQ-2: Project construction would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial 

pollutant concentrations. (Less than Significant) 

The PPSU project would entail seismic upgrades to the SFPUC’s San Andreas Pipeline No. 2, San 

Andreas Pipeline No. 3, and Sunset Supply Branch Pipeline, drinking water transmission 

pipelines that deliver water from the Harry Tracy Water Treatment Plant to the SFPUC’s regional 

water system. Combustion emissions from construction equipment and vehicles (i.e., heavy 

equipment and delivery/haul trucks, worker commute vehicles, air compressors, and generators) 

would be generated during project construction and could expose sensitive receptors to DPM 

and other TACs. Offsite DPM and other TAC emissions include those generated by construction 

worker commute vehicles and by diesel haul/delivery trucks used during construction, 

particularly trucks used to transport excavated materials from the project area and construction 

materials to the project area. TAC emissions from construction worker commute trips would be 

minor compared to the emissions generated by construction equipment and haul/delivery trucks. 

In addition to these offsite emissions, diesel-powered construction equipment would release 

DPM onsite along the internal construction site access routes. Combustion and exhaust contain a 

number of different TACs that are associated with various health risk factors (SCAQMD, 2010). 

DPM exhaust emissions from off-road heavy equipment and from on-road haul/delivery trucks 

operating within the project area during project construction were calculated using currently 

accepted calculation protocols, and are described in detail in the PPSU Air Quality Technical 

Report (see Appendix E). Because there are no operational emissions associated with the PPSU 

project, these health risk thresholds apply only to the construction phase of the project. 

A description of sensitive receptors near the project sites is given in Section 5.8.1.4. 

Construction-Related Cancer Risk 

Results for cancer risk impacts were modeled for the San Bruno South site, because this site had 

the longest construction period. If the health risk for the San Bruno South site was above the 

significance thresholds, the site with the second-longest construction period would have been 





modeled. Because the health risks for the San Bruno South project site were below the 

significance thresholds, the health risks for other project sites were based on the modeling results 

for the San Bruno South site. 

Based on the assessment described above, it was determined that the MEI would be exposed to 

an incremental cancer risk of 6.9 in one million at the San Bruno South site, which is below the 

threshold of 10 in one million. Thus, incremental cancer risks at the various project sites would be 

below the cancer risk threshold (as presented in Table 5.8-7). The incremental cancer risks for the 

Colma, South San Francisco, 4 San Bruno North, and Millbrae sites were 2.3, 2.4, 0.5, and 3.2, 

respectively, and were calculated based on the ratio of DPM emissions at each site relative to the 

San Bruno South site. This method was appropriate for incremental cancer risk estimation, as 

well as for chronic and acute HI estimation, because the MEI at the San Bruno South site was 

adjacent to the construction area, providing the most conservative estimate at the other sites, and 

the meteorology remained the same at each site. The impact would be less than significant. 

Modeling results are presented in Appendix E. 

Construction-Related Chronic Noncancer Hazard Index 

The potential for exposure to result in chronic noncancer effects is evaluated by comparing the 

estimated annual average air concentration (which is equivalent to the average daily air 

concentration) to the chemical-specific noncancer chronic RELs. The chronic REL is the inhalation 

exposure concentration at which no adverse chronic health effects would be anticipated 

following exposure. When calculated for a single chemical, the comparison yields a ratio termed 

a hazard quotient (HQ). To evaluate the potential for adverse chronic noncancer health effects 

from simultaneous exposure to multiple chemicals, the HQs for all chemicals are summed, 

yielding a HI. The results are presented in Table 5.8-7. As shown in the table, TAC exposure from 

the project’s construction emissions would result in a maximum chronic HI of 0.016 at the San 

Bruno South site, which is well below the threshold of 1.0. The maximum chronic HI at the 

Colma, South San Francisco, San Bruno North, and Millbrae sites were 0.005, 0.006, 0.001, and 

0.007, respectively; therefore, chronic noncancer health impacts at existing receptors would be 


Construction-Related Acute Noncancer Hazard Index 

The potential exposure to emissions of pollutants resulting in acute noncancer effects is evaluated 

by comparing the estimated 1-hour maximum air concentration to the chemical-specific 

noncancer acute RELs. The acute REL is the inhalation exposure concentration at which no 

adverse acute health effects would be anticipated following exposure. When calculated for a 

single chemical, the comparison yields a ratio termed a HQ. To evaluate the potential for adverse 

acute noncancer health effects from simultaneous exposure to multiple chemicals, the HQs for all 

chemicals are summed, yielding an HI. There is currently no acute noncancer toxicity value 

4 The analysis for the South San Francisco site includes the common staging area. Emissions anticipated at the common 

staging area would be from mobile sources (truck trips and worker vehicle trips). No off-road emissions would result 

from activities at the common staging area. These minor emissions associated with the common staging area were 

combined with the anticipated construction emissions at the South San Francisco site for impact analysis purposes. 





Table 5.8-7 

Construction-Related Cancer Risk, Acute, and Chronic Noncancer Health Risk at MEI 

Project Impact (Unmitigated) 

Site 

Annual Average 

PM2.5 (μg/m 3 ) 

Cancer Risk 

(per million) 3 

Chronic 

Hazard 

Quotient 4 

Acute Hazard 

Quotient 5 

Colma 1 0.024 2.3 0.005 2.280E-07 

South SF 1 

(including common 

staging area) 

0.025 2.4 0.006 2.280E-07 

San Bruno North 1,2 0.005 0.5 0.001 0.000E+00 

San Bruno South 0.072 6.9 0.016 4.561E-07 

Millbrae 1 0.033 3.2 0.007 2.280E-08 

Thresholds 3 0.3 10 1 1 

Sources: BAAQMD, 2010b; URS (Appendix E). 

Notes: 

1 Only the San Bruno South site was modeled using ISCST3 (U.S. EPA, 2002). PM2.5 and DPM concentrations for the 

other sites were calculated by using the ratio of each site’s total emissions to the San Bruno South site’s total 

emissions. The nearest sensitive receptor to the San Bruno South site was adjacent to the construction area; 

therefore, these results present a worst case scenario at each of the other sites. Meteorological conditions are similar 

at all sites. 

2 The San Bruno North site Acute Hazard is zero because no gasoline operated equipment would be used during 

construction at the site. DPM does not cause acute health effects. 

3 The cancer risk was estimated for DPM and TOG at the Colma, South San Francisco, San Bruno South, and Millbrae 

sites. The cancer risk was estimated for DPM only at the San Bruno North site because there would be no gasolineoperated 

equipment at that site. The cancer risk for speciated TOG, such as acetaldehyde, benzene, 1,3-butadiene, 

ethylbenzene, formaldehyde, and naphthalene, was estimated based on the TOG dose multiplied by the individual 

speciated TOG cancer potency factor (BAAQMD, 2011b). There is no cancer potency factor available for acrolein, so 

cancer risks from acrolein were not estimated. 

4 The chronic hazard quotient was estimated for DPM at all sites by dividing the modeled DPM concentration at each 

site by the DPM chronic inhalation REL. The chronic hazard quotient for speciated TOG, such as acrolein (for onroad 

sources only), acetaldehyde, benzene, 1,3-butadiene, ethylbenzene, formaldehyde, and naphthalene, was 

estimated at all sites except San Bruno North, because the San Bruno North site would not have any gasoline 

equipment onsite. The chronic hazard quotient for speciated TOG was estimated by multiplying the modeled TOG 

concentration by the EMFAC speciated TOG percent, and dividing it by the speciated TOG chronic inhalation REL. 

5 There is no acute inhalation REL for DPM, 1,3-butadiene, ethylbenzene, and naphthalene, so an acute hazard 

quotient for those pollutants was not estimated. An acute hazard quotient was estimated for speciated TOGs, such 

as acrolein (for on-road sources only), acetaldehyde, benzene, and formaldehyde, at all sites except San Bruno 

North, because the San Bruno North site does not operate any gasoline equipment onsite. An acute hazard quotient 

for speciated TOG was estimated by multiplying the modeled TOG concentration by the EMFAC speciated TOG 

percent, and dividing it by the speciated TOG acute inhalation REL. 

DPM = diesel particulate matter 

MEI = maximally exposed individual 



REL = reference exposure level 

TOG = total organic gas 





available for DPM. TAC exposure from the project’s construction emissions would result in an 

acute HI of 4.6E-7 at the San Bruno South site (see Table 5.8-7), which is well below the threshold 

of 1.0. The maximum acute HI at the Colma, South San Francisco, San Bruno North, and Millbrae 

sites were 2.28E-7, 2.28E-7, 0.00, and 2.28E-8, respectively; therefore, acute noncancer health 

impacts at existing receptors would be less than significant. 

Construction-Related Ambient PM2.5 Increase 

The PM2.5 increase was modeled in ISCST3, based on the unit concentration of PM2.5. Results of 

the analysis also indicate that the incremental increase in annual average PM2.5 concentration 

would be 0.072 μg/m 3 near the San Bruno South site, which is below the significance threshold of 

0.3 μg/m 3 (see Table 5.8-7). The Colma, South San Francisco, San Bruno North, and Millbrae sites 

would also be below the threshold. Therefore, PM2.5 concentrations from construction-related 

emissions would be less than significant. No mitigation would be required. 

Impact AQ-3: Project construction would not create objectionable odors affecting a 

substantial number of people. (Less than Significant) 

Combustion emissions from the use of diesel fuel in construction equipment could generate 

localized objectionable odors. Construction equipment used at the South San Francisco, 

Millbrae, and San Bruno sites could result in objectionable odors for nearby residents. The 

proposed project would be subject to Title 13, CCR, Section 2485, which limits idling of dieselfueled 

commercial motor vehicles, thereby reducing related odors. Odors from diesel 

equipment typically come from incomplete fuel combustion that occurs during idling. Because 

regulations, such as Title 13, CCR, Section 2485, limit idling of diesel engines, they would 

reduce diesel-related odors. This impact is considered less than significant. Although this 

impact is already less than significant and no mitigation is necessary, the Section 2485 

requirements have been incorporated, with more stringent BAAQMD idling-time limitations, 

into Mitigation Measure M-AQ-1: BAAQMD Basic Construction Measures (see Impact AQ-1, 

above, for description), which would further limit diesel odors generated by construction 

vehicles. 

Impact AQ-4: Project construction would not conflict with or obstruct implementation 

of the applicable air quality plan. (Less than Significant) 

The most recently adopted air quality plan for the SFBAAB is the BAAQMD’s 2010 CAP, which is 

a comprehensive plan aimed at improving Bay Area air quality and protecting public health. The 

CAP defines a control strategy for implementation by the BAAQMD to reduce emissions and 

decrease ambient concentrations of harmful pollutants (ground-level ozone and its key 

precursors, ROG and NOX), as well as to safeguard public health by reducing exposure to the air 

pollutants that pose the greatest health risks (particulate matter, primarily PM2.5 and precursors to 

secondary PM2.5). 

As indicated above in Section 5.8.2.2, the CAP contains 55 control measures under the following 

categories: stationary-source measures, mobile-source measures, transportation control measures, 

land use and local impact measures, and energy and climate measures. The temporary air quality 

impacts associated with project construction would not hinder the long-term air quality planning 

goals of the 2010 CAP due to the short-term nature of the construction emissions. Thus, the 





project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan, and 

this impact is considered less than significant. 


As summarized in Section 5.8.3.2, Approach to Analysis, under Consistency with Applicable Air 

Quality Plan, due to the nature of the project, which entails replacement of underground portions 

of an existing pipeline and restoration of the sites to pre-construction conditions, there are no 

operational impacts associated with this project (no impact). 


Impact C-AQ: Construction of the proposed project could result in a cumulatively 

considerable contribution to cumulative air quality impacts associated with criteria 

pollutant emission and health risks. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) 

Regional air quality impacts are by their very nature cumulative impacts. Emissions from past, 

present and future projects contribute to adverse regional air quality impacts on a cumulative 

basis. No single project by itself would be sufficient in size to result in nonattainment of ambient 

air quality standards. Instead, a project’s individual emissions contribute to existing cumulative 

adverse air quality impacts (BAAQMD, 2010b). As described above, the project-level thresholds 

for criteria air pollutants are based on levels by which new sources are not anticipated to 

contribute to an air quality violation or result in a considerable net increase in criteria air 

pollutants. Therefore, if a project’s emissions are below the project-level thresholds, the project 

would not be considered to result in a considerable contribution to cumulative regional air 

quality impacts. 

With respect to localized health risks and hazards, as described above, the significance thresholds 

for new receptors represent a cumulative impact analysis, because this analysis considers all 

potential sources that may result in adverse health impacts within a receptor’s zone of influence. 

Similarly, new sources that contribute to health risks and hazards at nearby sensitive receptors 

that exceed these cumulative thresholds would result in a significant health risk and hazards 

impact to existing sensitive receptors. 

Construction-Related Criteria Pollutant and Fugitive Dust Emissions 

To address cumulative impacts on regional air quality, the BAAQMD has established thresholds 

of significance for construction-related criteria pollutants and precursor emissions. These 

thresholds represent the levels at which a project’s individual emissions of criteria pollutants and 

precursors would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the SFBAAB’s existing air 

quality violations. If average daily or annual emissions exceed these thresholds, the PPSU project 

would result in a cumulatively significant impact. As indicated in Table 5.8-6 above, 

construction-related criteria pollutant and precursor emissions associated with the PPSU project 

would not exceed the significance threshold for any criteria pollutant, and the PPSU project’s 

contribution to this cumulative impact would not be cumulatively considerable. 

The cumulative impact of fugitive dust emissions from construction cannot be precisely 

quantified, and so is considered potentially significant. However, implementation of Mitigation 





Measure M-AQ-1: BAAQMD Basic Construction Measures would reduce project-level 

emissions by requiring construction contractors to implement BMPs to limit dust. Therefore, the 

PPSU project would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative air quality 

impacts related to fugitive dust emissions during construction (less than significant with 

mitigation). 

Construction-Related Health Risks 

To address cumulative impacts on local air quality conditions due to TAC emissions during 

project construction, the BAAQMD recommends assessing impacts within 1,000 feet of the 

proposed project, taking into account both project-specific and cumulative sources (i.e., the 

proposed project plus existing and foreseeable future projects). The BAAQMD has established 

the following cumulative thresholds of significance that should be applied at the PPSU project’s 

MEI: 100 excess cancer cases in a million; an HI of 10 for chronic and acute noncancer risk; and 

0.8 μg/m 3 of PM2.5 (annual average) from all local sources. 

As discussed above under Impact AQ-2, the PPSU project would result in an increase in PM2.5 

emissions from haul and delivery trucks during construction. While the project-related excess 

cancer risk, chronic noncancer HI, and average daily PM2.5 emissions at the MEI would not exceed 

the BAAQMD CEQA significance thresholds (see Table 5.8-7), it is possible that significant 

cumulative increases in PM2.5 emissions could occur due to simultaneous construction of other 

projects in the vicinity in addition to any existing identified risk sources within the project 

vicinity (listed in Table 5.8-2). Cumulative risk and hazard impacts at the MEI from cumulative 

construction projects in the PPSU project area are shown in Table 5.8-8. Based on the results 

shown in Table 5.8-8, the project plus other nearby construction projects and stationary sources 

would not result in a significant cumulative health risk impact. Therefore, the cumulative health 

risk impact would be less than significant. 



Table 5.8-8 

Construction Period Cumulative Health Risk Assessment Results 



Nearby Sources 2 Nearby Construction Projects 3 Cumulative Analysis 

Annual Cancer Risk 

Annual Cancer 

Annual Cancer 

Average PM2.5 (per Chronic 

Average PM2.5 Risk (per Chronic Average PM2.5 Risk (per Chronic 

Project Site 1 

Plant Number/Plant Name 

(μg/m 3 ) million) Hazard Project Name (μg/m 3 ) 4 million) Hazard (μg/m 3 ) million) Hazard 

Colma Site G11198: Lexus of Serramonte N/A 8.722 0.012 Regional 

0.010 1.1 0.18 0.163 16 0.257 



(including 

common 

staging area) 

8758: Serramonte Ford Body Shop 0.018 0.000 0.000 

12251: G & M Auto Body 0.000 0.040 0.000 

12368: Honda of Serramonte 0.000 0.000 0.000 

G8650: Home of Peace Cemetery N/A 0.222 0.000 

El Camino Real 6 0.077 2.571 0.030 

Serramonte Boulevard 6 0.034 1.161 0.030 

Groundwater 

Storage and 

Recovery 

Project 5 

G11428 7 : Westborough Chevron N/A 0.331 0.001 Regional 

0.070 7.9 0.46 0.423 84 0.599 

19316 8 : Access Properties LLC 0.000 0.008 0.000 Groundwater 

El Camino Real 6 0.020 0.804 0.030 Storage and 

Westborough Boulevard 6 0.204 5.903 0.030 Recovery 

5611: Daland Body Shop 0.000 0.000 0.000 Project 5 

14240: SFPUC Water Supply and Treatment Division 0.104 58.80 0.021 

19842: Chestnut Cleaners 0.000 7.490 0.020 

G11391 7 : Camino Petroleum N/A 0.214 0.019 

G12394 7 : Orange Avenue Shell N/A 0.149 0.013 

G3134 7 : Shelter Creek Chevron N/A 0.618 0.001 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.123 8 0.011 

I-280 10 0.118 6.843 0.009 

16280: Verizon Wireless Highway 35/280 0.003 11.140 0.004 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.109 20 0.022 

I-280 10 0.034 2.008 0.002 


North Site 9 


South Site 

Millbrae Site G7549: Green Hills Country Club N/A 0.635 0.001 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.033 4 0.008 

Thresholds 11 0.8 100 10 

Sources: BAAQMD, 2012b; Illingworth and Rodkins, Inc., 2012; URS (Appendix E). 

Notes: 

1 

PM2.5 and DPM concentrations were modeled using ISCST3 only for the San Bruno South site. The remaining sites’ PM2.5 and DPM concentrations were calculated by using the ratio of each site’s total emissions to the San Bruno 

South site’s total emissions. The nearest sensitive receptor to the San Bruno South site was adjacent to the construction area; therefore, these results present a worst case scenario at each of the other sites. Meteorological conditions 

are similar at all sites. 

2 

Some nearby sources emit PM2.5, but in quantities below the significant figures reported to the BAAQMD. These are represented by zero. Sources that do not emit PM2.5 (e.g., gas stations) have N/A for PM2.5 concentrations. In 

addition, for cancer risk and chronic hazard, some sites register values below the significant figures used by the BAAQMD. 

3 

All nearby construction projects (within 1,000 feet of the construction area) were assumed to comply with the BAAQMD thresholds for project construction. 

4 

While the BAAQMD threshold for project construction PM2.5 concentrations is 0.3 μg/m 3 , in order to meet a cancer risk value of 10 in a million, PM2.5 concentrations from diesel exhaust cannot exceed 0.101 μg/m 3 . Therefore, the 

worst possible impact from PM2.5 concentrations at any receptor must be equal to or less than 0.101 μg/m 3 to comply with BAAQMD new source thresholds. 

5 

GSR wells 8 and 17 (alternate) are in the vicinity of the Colma site, and GSR wells 11, 12, and 19 (alternate) are in the vicinity of the South San Francisco site. 

6 

Roadway annual average PM2.5 and cancer risk for surface streets >10,000 AADT were estimated from screening tables provided by BAAQMD (BAAQMD, 2012b) and traffic data from the California Environmental Health 

Tracking Program traffic tool (CEHTP, 2012). The maximum acute and chronic HI for roadways will be less than 0.03. 

7 

The BAAQMD gas station cancer risk and chronic hazard distance multipliers were used where appropriate using the distance between the gas station and the nearest sensitive receptor. 

8 

For Source #19316, URS was provided average daily emissions, and not annual average PM2.5, cancer risk, or chronic hazard. Consequently, the annual PM2.5 concentration, cancer risk, and chronic hazard were estimated by 

assuming this source was located at the construction site, and the same ratio methodology described in footnote 4 was used to calculate a worst case impact. 

9 

Acute hazard for the San Bruno North site is zero because no gasoline-operated equipment would be used during construction. DPM does not impact acute hazard. 

10 

Interstate annual average PM2.5, cancer risk, and chronic hazard values were estimated from the BAAQMD highway screening analysis tool for San Mateo County (BAAQMD, 2012b). 

11 

The BAAQMD has acute hazard significance thresholds for individual projects, but not for cumulative impacts. Because there are no acute hazard cumulative thresholds, it is not possible to determine the significance of impacts. 

Therefore, cumulative acute hazards were not estimated. 

AADT = annual average daily traffic I-280 = Interstate 280 SFPUC = San Francisco Public Utilities Commission 

BAAQMD = Bay Area Air Quality Management District 


DPM = diesel particulate matter 







BAAQMD (Bay Area Air Quality Management District), 2009a. Toxic Air Contaminant Air 

Monitoring Data for 2009 [Excel Spreadsheet]. December 31. 

BAAQMD (Bay Area Air Quality Management District), 2009b. BAAQMD, Revised Draft 

Options and Justification Report, California Environmental Quality Act Thresholds of 

Significance. October 2009. 

BAAQMD (Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2010a. Bay Area 2010 Clean 

Air Plan. Adopted September 15, 2010. 

BAAQMD (Bay Area Air Quality Management District), 2010b. California Environmental Quality 

Act (CEQA) Air Quality Guidelines and adopted Thresholds of Significance. June. Available 

online at: http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Planning-and-Research/CEQA-GUIDELINES/ 

Updated-CEQA-Guidelines.aspx. 

BAAQMD (Bay Area Air Quality Management District), 2011a. California Environmental Quality 

Act Air Quality Guidelines. Updated May. 

BAAQMD (Bay Area Air Quality Management District), 2011b. Recommended Methods for 

Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards. May. 

BAAQMD (Bay Area Air Quality Management District), 2012a. Ambient Air Quality Standards and 

Attainment Status. Available online at: http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Planning-and-Research/ 

Emission-Inventory-and-Air-Quality-Related/Air-Quality-Standards.aspx. Accessed June 18, 2012. 

BAAQMD (Bay Area Air Quality Management District), 2012b. Stationary Source and Highways 

Screening Analysis Tool. Available online at http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Planning-and- 

Research/CEQA-GUIDELINES/Tools-and-Methodology.aspx. Accessed March 2012. 

CEHTP (California Environmental Health Tracking Program), 2012. Traffic Tool Available at: 

http://www.ehib.org/traffic_tool.jsp. Accessed March 2012. 

CARB (California Air Resources Board), 1998. California Air Resources Board, Fact Sheet, “The 

Toxic Air Contaminant Identification Process: Toxic Air Contaminant Emissions from Dieselfueled 

Engines.” October. Available online at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/dieseltac/ 

factsht1.pdf, accessed February 27, 2012. 

CARB (California Air Resources Board), 2009 to 2011. ADAM Air Quality Data Statistics. 

Available online at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/. Accessed June 18, 2012. 

Illingworth and Rodkins, Inc., 2012. Final Air Quality Technical Report Regional Groundwater 

Storage and Recovery Project. Prepared for GHD. July 25. 

San Francisco Department of Public Health, 2008. Assessment and Mitigation of Air Pollutant 

Health Effects for Intra Urban Roadways: Guidance for Land Use Planning and Environmental 

Review. May. 





SCAQMD (South Coast Air Quality Management District), 2006. Updated CEIDARS Table with 

PM2.5 Fractions. September. 

SCAQMD, 2010. Supplemental Instructions, Reporting Procedures for AB2588 Facilities for 

Reporting their Quadrennial Air Toxics Emissions Inventory, Annual Emissions Reporting 

Program. January. 

U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 2002. Industrial Source Complex Short Term 

Dispersion Model (ISCST3) Computer Model. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/scram001/ 

dispersion_alt.htm. 

U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 2009 to 2011. AirData Monitor Values Report. 

Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/airdata/ad_rep_mon.html. Accessed June 18, 2012. 

Western Regional Air Partnership, 2006. WRAP Fugitive Dust Handbook. September 7. Available 

online at: http://www.wrapair.org/forums/dejf/fdh/content/FDHandbook_Rev_06.pdf, accessed 

February 16, 2012. 






This section addresses greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that could result from implementation of 

the proposed Peninsula Pipelines Seismic Upgrade (PPSU) project. Construction-related GHG 

emissions are evaluated quantitatively and then compared to applicable significance thresholds. 

GHGs and their contribution to climate change are a global issue, and this analysis qualitatively 

assesses the PPSU project’s consistency with local and statewide GHG-reduction policies. 

5.9.1 Setting 

5.9.1.1 Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change 

Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are referred to as GHGs because they capture heat 

radiated from the sun as it is reflected back into the atmosphere, much like a greenhouse does. 

The accumulation of GHGs in the atmosphere has been noted as the driving force for global 

climate change. The primary GHGs are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and 

water vapor. 

While the presence of the primary GHGs in the atmosphere is naturally occurring, CO2, methane, 

and nitrous oxide are largely emitted from human activities, accelerating the rate at which these 

compounds occur within earth’s atmosphere. Emissions of carbon dioxide are largely byproducts 

of fossil fuel combustion, whereas methane results from off-gassing associated with 

agricultural practices and landfills. Other GHGs are generated in certain industrial processes and 

include hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. Greenhouse gases are 

typically reported in carbon dioxide-equivalent (CO2e) measures. 1 

There is international scientific consensus that human-caused increases in GHGs have and will 

continue to contribute to global warming. Potential global warming impacts in California may 

include, but are not limited to, loss in snow pack, sea-level rise, more extreme-heat days per year, 

more high-ozone days, more large forest fires, and more drought years. Secondary effects are 

likely to include a global rise in sea level, impacts to agriculture, changes in disease vectors, and 

changes in habitat and biodiversity (United States Global Change Research Program, 2009). 

5.9.1.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Summary 

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) estimated that in 2009 California produced about 457 

million gross metric tons of CO2e (MMTCO2e) (CARB, 2011a). CARB found that transportation is 

the source of 38 percent of the state’s GHG emissions, followed by electricity generation (both instate 

generation and imported electricity) at 23 percent and industrial sources at 18 percent. 

Commercial and residential fuel use (primarily for heating) accounted for 9 percent of GHG 

emissions (CARB, 2011a). In the San Francisco Bay Area, fossil fuel consumption in the 

1 

Because of the differential heat absorption potential of various GHGs, GHG emissions are frequently measured in 

“carbon dioxide-equivalents,” which present a weighted average based on each gas’s heat absorption (or “global 

warming”) potential. 





transportation sector (on-road motor vehicles, off-highway mobile sources, and aircraft) and the 

industrial and commercial sectors are the two largest sources of GHG emissions, each accounting 

for approximately 36 percent of the San Francisco Bay Area’s 95.8 MMTCO2e emitted in 2007. 

Electricity generation accounts for approximately 16 percent of the Bay Area’s GHG emissions 

followed by residential fuel usage at 7 percent, off-road equipment at 3 percent and agriculture at 

1 percent (BAAQMD, 2010a). 



There are no federal regulations or requirements pertaining to GHG emissions that apply to the 

PPSU project. 


Global Warming Solutions Act (Assembly Bill 32) 

In 2006, the California legislature passed Assembly Bill (AB) 32 (California Health and Safety 

Code Division 25.5, Sections 38500, et seq.), also known as the Global Warming Solutions Act. 

AB 32 requires CARB to design and implement emission limits, regulations, and other measures, 

such that feasible and cost-effective statewide GHG emissions are reduced to 1990 levels by 2020, 

representing a 25 percent reduction in emissions. 

California Climate Change Scoping Plan 

Pursuant to AB 32, CARB adopted a Scoping Plan in December 2008, outlining measures to meet 

the 2020 GHG-reduction limits. In order to meet these goals, it was originally estimated that 

California must reduce its GHG emissions by 30 percent below projected 2020 business-as-usual 

emissions levels, or about 15 percent from today’s levels (CARB, 2010). Recently, however, CARB 

updated the 2020 business-as-usual emissions levels and projected that a 16 percent reduction from 

2020 business-as-usual emissions would enable the State to reach the scoping plan goal (CARB, 

2011b). The AB 32 Scoping Plan estimates a reduction of 174 MMTCO2e (about 191 million U.S. 

tons) from the transportation, energy, agriculture, forestry, and high-global-warming-potential 

sectors, as shown in Table 5.9-1. CARB has identified an implementation timeline for the GHG 

reduction strategies in the Scoping Plan (CARB, 2011b). Some measures may require new legislation 

to implement, some will require subsidies, some have already been developed, and some will 

require additional effort to evaluate and quantify. Additionally, some emissions reductions 

strategies may require their own environmental review under the California Environmental Quality 

Act (CEQA) or the National Environmental Policy Act. 

AB 32 also anticipates that local government actions will result in reduced GHG emissions. CARB 

has identified a GHG reduction target of 15 percent from current levels for local governments 

and notes that successful implementation of the plan relies on local governments’ land use 

planning and urban growth decisions, because local governments have primary authority to 

plan, zone, approve, and permit land development to accommodate population growth and the 

changing needs of their jurisdictions. 





Table 5.9-1 

GHG Reductions from the Assembly Bill 32 Scoping Plan Sectors 

Sector 

Estimated GHG Reduction 

by 2020 (MMTCO2e) 

Transportation 62.3 

Electricity and Natural Gas 49.7 

Industry 1.4 

Landfill Methane Control Measure (Discrete Early Action) 1 

Forestry 5 

High-Climate-Change-Potential GHGs 20.2 

Additional Reductions Needed to Achieve the GHG Cap 34.4 

Total Reductions Counted Towards 2020 Target 174 

Other Recommended Measures 

Government Operations 1-2 

Water 4.8 

Green Buildings 26 

High Recycling/Zero Waste 

 

 

 

 

 

Commercial Recycling 

Composting 

Anaerobic Digestion 

Extended Producer Responsibility 

Environmentally Preferable Purchasing 

Total Reductions Counted Towards 2020 Target 40.8-41.8 

Source: CARB, 2011b. 

Notes: 

GHG = greenhouse gas 

MMTCO2e = million metric tons of carbon dioxide-equivalent 

9 

The AB 32 Scoping Plan relies on the requirements of Senate Bill (SB) 375 to implement the 

carbon emission reductions anticipated from land use decisions. SB 375 was enacted to align local 

land use and transportation planning sectors to better achieve the State’s GHG-reduction goals. 

SB 375 requires Metropolitan Planning Organizations to develop regional transportation plans 

which incorporate a “sustainable communities strategy” that would achieve GHG emission 

reduction targets set by CARB. SB 375 also includes provisions for streamlined CEQA review for 

some infill projects such as transit-oriented development. SB 375 would be implemented over the 

next several years and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s 2013 Regional 

Transportation Plan would be the commission’s first plan subject to SB 375. 





SB 97 required the California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to amend the 

State CEQA Guidelines to address the feasible mitigation of GHG emissions and effects. In 

response, OPR amended the CEQA Guidelines to provide guidance for analyzing GHG 

emissions. Among other changes to the CEQA Guidelines, the amendments add a new section to 

the CEQA Checklist (CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G) to address questions regarding a proposed 

project’s potential to emit GHGs. 


Bay Area Air Quality Management District CEQA Guidelines 

The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) is the primary agency responsible for 

air quality regulation in the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB). BAAQMD 

prepared the CEQA air quality guidelines to assist lead agencies in evaluating the air quality 

impacts of projects and plans proposed in the SFBAAB. The guidelines provide procedures for 

evaluating potential air quality impacts during the environmental review process consistent with 

CEQA requirements. On June 2, 2010, the BAAQMD adopted new and revised CEQA air quality 

thresholds of significance and issued revised guidelines that supersede the 1999 air quality 

guidelines. GHG operational thresholds for land use projects are: compliance with a Qualified 

GHG Reduction Strategy; or 1,100 metric tons (MT) of CO2e per year; or 4.6 MT CO2e per service 

population (residents plus employees) per year. No construction thresholds for GHG emissions 

are provided. The BAAQMD recommends the significance of GHG construction-related emission 

impacts be determined in relation to meeting AB 32 GHG reduction targets. As noted previously, 

BAAQMD’s adoption of thresholds for CEQA analysis was the subject of judicial action, and the 

adoption of the thresholds has been set aside. However, the SF Planning has determined that 

Appendix D of the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, in combination with BAAQMD’s 

Revised Draft Options and Justification Report (BAAQMD, 2009), provide substantial evidence to 

support the BAAQMD recommended thresholds. Therefore, the Planning Department has 

determined that they are appropriate for use in this analysis as standards of significance. 

San Francisco Greenhouse Gas Reduction Ordinance 

In May 2008, the City and County of San Francisco (CCSF) adopted an ordinance amending the 

San Francisco Environment Code to establish GHG emissions targets and departmental action 

plans; to authorize the San Francisco Department of the Environment to coordinate efforts to 

meet these targets; and to make environmental findings. The Greenhouse Gas Reduction 

Ordinance establishes the following GHG emissions reduction limits and target dates by which to 

achieve them: 

Reduce GHG emissions by 25 percent below 1990 levels by 2017. 



The ordinance also directs CCSF departments to prepare climate action plans that assess GHG 

emissions associated with their activities and with the activities they regulate, and to report the 

results of those assessments to the San Francisco Department of the Environment. 





San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Climate Action Plan 

In 2009, pursuant to San Francisco’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Ordinance, the San Francisco 

Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) presented a departmental climate action plan focused on 

energy efficiency and renewable energy programs that would help reduce GHG emissions. The 

total energy savings potential for all SFPUC facilities is estimated to be 11.8 million kilowatthours 

of electricity. A number of SFPUC energy-efficiency and renewable energy generation 

projects have already been implemented, and many more are in the planning, design, or 

construction phases (SF Planning, 2010). 

The SFPUC manages and implements energy-efficiency projects in municipal buildings and 

facilities and provides energy-efficiency services such as energy audits and design and 

construction management. Energy-efficiency technologies are commonly applied to lighting; 

heating, ventilation, and air conditioning; facility pumps and motors; and electrical controls. The 

SFPUC estimated that the energy-efficiency improvement projects had resulted in a CO2 

emissions reduction of approximately 11,000 MT per year since 2007 (SF Planning, 2010). 

The SFPUC currently operates over 2 megawatts of solar electric photovoltaic projects 

throughout San Francisco that collectively generate over 2 million kilowatt-hours of clean 

renewable electricity annually. A large-scale solar electric photovoltaic project planned for Sunset 

Reservoir is expected to produce an additional 5 megawatts of solar energy. Other potential 

opportunities for large-scale solar projects are being considered for the SFPUC Tesla Portal 

facility in San Joaquin County and for SFPUC water supply facilities in the Sunol Valley. In 

addition, the SFPUC has installed wind-monitoring equipment at sites in and around the San 

Francisco Bay Area and the Sierra Nevada mountains to evaluate the potential for wind power 

development (SF Planning, 2010). SFPUC projects that reduce electrical energy consumption 

and/or generate renewable energy help reduce GHG emissions associated with SFPUC facility 

operations. 

San Francisco’s Electricity Resource Plan 

The 2011 Updated Electricity Resource Plan presents the citywide plan to help San Francisco 

achieve its goal of generating all of its energy needs from renewable and zero-GHG, electric 

energy sources by 2030 (SFPUC, 2011a). See Section 5.18.2.3 in Section 5.18, Energy and Mineral 

Resources, for additional information regarding this plan. 



The CCSF has not formally adopted significance standards for impacts related to GHG emissions, 

but generally considers that implementation of the proposed project would have a significant 

impact if it were to: 

 

 

Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on 

the environment; or 

Conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing 

GHG emissions. 






This analysis of GHG emissions considers construction-related impacts associated with the 

proposed project. Pursuant to Section 15064.4 of the CEQA Guidelines, the significance of the 

PPSU project’s GHG emissions has been determined based on the BAAQMD’s adopted 

thresholds of significance, and on whether the PPSU project’s emissions would exceed levels 

outlined in any applicable GHG-reduction plans, policies, or regulations. 

The BAAQMD thresholds of significance include a threshold for operational GHG emissions but 

none for construction-related GHG emissions (BAAQMD, 2010b). BAAQMD recommends that 

the significance of GHG construction-related emission impacts be determined in relation to 

meeting AB 32 GHG reduction targets. BAAQMD further recommends, and encourages lead 

agencies to incorporate, best management practices (BMPs) to reduce GHG emissions during 

construction, when it is feasible and applicable (BAAQMD, 2011). BMPs could include, but are 

not limited to: ensuring that at least 15 percent of the construction fleet is comprised of 

alternatively fueled (e.g., biodiesel, electric) vehicles and equipment, using at least 10 percent 

local building materials, and recycling or reusing at least 50 percent of construction waste or 

demolition materials. 

The impact analysis in this section estimates the annual GHGs that would be emitted during 

project construction activities, and then compares these estimates to total annual GHG emissions 

in the San Francisco Bay Area and in the state (there are no applicable construction-related 

thresholds). The impact analysis also compares the total GHG emissions that would be generated 

during project construction (averaged over the lifespan of the project) to BAAQMD operational 

significance thresholds. The BAAQMD’s operational GHG thresholds of significance that apply 

to the PPSU project are 10,000 MT of CO2e per year for stationary sources, or 1,100 MT of CO2e 

per year for indirect sources 

This analysis evaluates the proposed project’s potential effects on GHG emissions during project 

construction. Construction-related effects on GHG emissions relate strictly to direct and indirect 

impacts that could occur during construction activities, including site preparation and cleaning, 

excavation, dewatering, construction of improvements, and demobilization and site restoration. 

Due to the nature of the project, which entails replacement of underground portions of an 

existing pipeline and restoration of the sites to pre-construction conditions, there are no 

operational impacts associated with the project. There would be no new emission sources added, 

and no substantial changes to current operation; therefore, operation-related effects on air quality 

are not analyzed further. 


The proposed project’s greenhouse gas impacts and the resulting significance determinations are 

summarized in Table 5.9-2. 





Table 5.9-2 

Summary of Impacts – Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

Impacts 

Impact GG-1: Project construction would generate greenhouse gas 

emissions, but not at levels that would result in a significant impact on the 

environment, or that would conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or 

regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. 

Impact C-GG: Project construction would not result in a cumulatively 

considerable contribution to GHG emissions. 

Significance 

Determination 

LS 

LS 

Notes: 

LS = Less than Significant impact, no mitigation required 


Impact GG-1: Project construction would generate GHG emissions, but not at levels 

that would result in a significant impact on the environment, or that would conflict 

with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing 

GHG emissions. (Less than Significant) 

Project construction activities are estimated to occur over approximately 12 months (between 

October 2014 and September 2015), and the resulting exhaust emissions from off-road equipment, 

on-road trucking, and construction worker commute traffic during this period are expected to 

contribute minimally to long-term regional increases in GHGs. Table 5.9-3 presents the PPSU 

project’s estimated total construction-related emissions for 2014 and 2015. As indicated in the 

Table 5.9-3 

Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions During Construction 

Years: 2014-2015 CH4 N2O CO2 

Construction Equipment 0.080 0.036 524 

Haul Trucks 0.00012 0.00011 64.5 

Worker Commute 0.017 0.030 205 

Total (Tons) 0.098 0.066 793 

GWP 21 310 1 

Total CO2e (Tons) 2.05 20.4 793 

Total CO2e (Metric Tons) 740 

Source: URS, 2012. 

Notes: 

MMTCO2e = million metric tons of carbon dioxide-equivalent 





table, construction activities associated with the PPSU project would generate up to an estimated 

740 MT of CO2e during the construction of the project (2014 to 2015). Emissions associated with 

project construction would represent approximately 1.55 × 10 -4 (0.0002) percent of total annual 

GHG emissions for the state (CARB, 20111a), and approximately 7.72 × 10 -4 (0.0008) percent of 

total annual GHG emissions for the entire San Francisco Bay Area (BAAQMD, 2010a). 2 The 

contribution of GHG emissions from the project would be extremely small in terms of both the 

statewide and San Francisco Bay Area annual GHG emissions. 

Neither the State nor BAAQMD has adopted a methodology or quantitative threshold, such 

as those that exist for criteria pollutants, that can be applied to a construction project to 

evaluate the significance of an individual project’s construction-related contribution to GHG 

emissions. 

Therefore, because the project’s construction emissions are short-term, they can be amortized 

over the project lifetime, to estimate the annual amortized emissions. These amortized emissions 

can be compared to the BAAQMD threshold of 1,100 metric tons of CO2e. 3 When averaged over a 

conservatively estimated 20-year lifespan for the PPSU project, the annual amortized GHG 

emissions associated with all project construction activities would equate to approximately 

37 MT of CO2e emissions per year. The annual amortized emissions are below the BAAQMD 

threshold, so the impacts would be less than significant. 

Although BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines do not specify thresholds of significance for 

construction-related GHG emissions, they do encourage incorporation of BMPs to reduce GHG 

emissions during construction, as applicable, such as ensuring that at least 15 percent of the 

construction fleet is comprised of alternatively fueled (e.g., biodiesel, electric) construction 

vehicles/equipment; using at least 10 percent local building materials; and recycling or reusing at 

least 50 percent of construction waste or demolition materials. 

A relatively small amount of GHGs would be generated during project construction activities in 

comparison to statewide and Bay Area GHG emissions. As discussed above, the project’s GHG 

emissions during construction would not exceed the BAAQMD GHG operational thresholds 

when conservatively averaged over a 20-year project lifespan. (As noted previously, no 

operational GHG emissions will be emitted as a result of the proposed project.) Therefore, the 

proposed project would not conflict with the State’s AB 32 goal and associated scoping plan 

estimates of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, or SFPUC’s Climate Action Plan’s 

goal of reducing GHG emissions by 25 percent below 1990 levels by 2017 and by 80 percent by 

2050. Therefore, the project would not result in a conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or 

regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions, and this impact would be less 


2 

BAAQMD reported regional Bay Area GHG emissions in 2007 at approximately 95.8 MMTCO2e (88.7 MMTCO2e were 

emitted within the San Francisco Bay Area Air District and 7.1 MMTCO2e were indirect emissions from imported 

electricity). 

3 

This is the BAAQMD operational threshold. Although there are no operational emissions for this project, the project’s 

amortized annual GHG emissions can be compared with the GHG operational threshold to determine impact 

conclusions. 





Although no mitigation is necessary, implementation of BAAQMD Basic Construction Measures 

(see Impact AQ-1 in Section 5.8, Air Quality, for description), which includes idling restrictions 

specified in Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 2485, would limit criteria 

pollutant emissions and, in turn, reduce construction-related GHG emissions. 


As summarized in Section 5.9.3.2, due to the nature of the project, which entails replacement of 

underground portions of an existing pipeline and restoration of the sites to pre-construction 

conditions, there are no operational GHG impacts associated with the project, and there would be 

no impact. 


Impact C-GG: Project construction would not result in a cumulatively considerable 

contribution to GHG emissions. (Less than Significant) 

Because GHG emissions affect global climate change, the evaluation of GHG emissions is 

inherently a cumulative impact issue. Since it is not feasible to evaluate GHG emissions impacts 

based on the sum of all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects on a global scale, 

the geographic scope for cumulative GHG emission impacts is the SFBAAB, as well as in the state 

as a whole. 

As discussed above under Impact GG-1, BAAQMD has not established a threshold of significance 

for construction-related GHG emissions. It is estimated that construction activities associated with 

the PPSU project would generate up to 740 MT of CO2e over the entire 12-month construction 

period. Construction emissions of 740 MT of CO2e would represent approximately 1.55 × 10 -4 

(0.0002) percent of total annual GHG emissions for the state (CARB, 2011a), 4 and approximately 

7.72 × 10 -4 (0.0008) percent of total annual GHG emissions for the entire San Francisco Bay Area. 

Thus, while the cumulative impact of regional and statewide GHG emissions is potentially 

significant, the contribution of GHG emissions from the project would be extremely small in terms 

of both the statewide and San Francisco Bay Area annual GHG emissions. In addition, constructionrelated 

GHG emissions would be temporary in nature and limited to the approximately 12-month 

construction period. Therefore, the PPSU project would not have a cumulatively considerable 

contribution to GHG emissions during construction (less than significant). 

There would be no change in GHG emissions during project operation; therefore, the PPSU 

project would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution) to GHG emissions during 

operation, and there would be no impact. 

4 

CARB reported statewide GHG emissions in 2008 at approximately 478 MMTCO2e. 






BAAQMD (Bay Area Air Quality Management District), 2009. Revised Draft Options and 

Justification Report. October 2009. 

BAAQMD (Bay Area Air Quality Management District), 2010a. Source Inventory of Bay Area 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions. February 2010. 

BAAQMD (Bay Area Air Quality Management District), 2010b. Adopted Air Quality CEQA 

Thresholds of Significance. June 2, 2010b. 

BAAQMD (Bay Area Air Quality Management District), 2011. California Environmental Quality 

Act Air Quality Guidelines. Updated May 2011. 

CARB (California Air Resources Board), 2010. California’s Climate Plan: Fact Sheet. Available 

online at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/facts/scoping_plan_fs.pdf. Accessed March 4, 2010. 

CARB (California Air Resources Board), 2011a. California Greenhouse Gas Inventory for 2000- 

2009 by Category as Defined in the Scoping Plan. Available online at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ 

inventory/data/tables/ghg_inventory_scopingplan_00-09_2011-10-26.pdf. October 26. 

CARB (California Air Resources Board), 2011b. Status of Scoping Plan Recommended Measures. 

Available online at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/status_of_scoping_plan_measures.pdf. 

SF Planning (City of County of San Francisco, San Francisco Planning Department), 2010. City 

and County of San Francisco Strategies to Address Greenhouse Gas Emissions in San Francisco. 

November 2010. 

SFPUC (San Francisco Public Utilities Commission), 2011. San Francisco’s 2011 Updated 

Electricity Resource Plan, Achieving San Francisco’s Vision for Greenhouse Gas Free Electricity. 

March 2011. 

United States Global Change Research Program, 2009. Global Climate Change Impacts in the U.S. 

Available online at: http://www.globalchange.gov/what-we-do/assessment/previous-assessments/ 

global-climate-change-impacts-in-the-us-2009. 

URS (URS Corporation), 2012. PPSU Final Greenhouse Gas Emissions Memorandum. June 29. 





This section evaluates the potential impacts on existing wind and shadow patterns related to the 

proposed Peninsula Pipelines Seismic Upgrade (PPSU). Mitigation measures to avoid or reduce 

adverse project impacts are identified, as appropriate. 

5.10.1 Setting 

The PPSU project sites are located in urban developed areas and are generally surrounded by 

commercial, residential, recreation, and open space uses. The development in the project vicinity 

is characteristically suburban in style, and structures are generally one to four-story buildings 

such as single-family residences, multi-story apartments, and “box” commercial buildings. The 

majority of the project sites are located within the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission 

right-of-way, and are open areas typically vegetated with grasses and/or trees. 

Outdoor recreation areas in the project vicinity include the California Golf Club of San Francisco 

adjacent to the South San Francisco site (a private facility); the Peninsula High School Athletic 

Fields adjacent to the proposed staging area at San Bruno South Site; and the City of Millbrae 

open space area (park) and Green Hills Country Club (a private facility), through which the 

Millbrae site extends. See Section 5.11, Recreation, for additional details regarding recreation 

facilities in the project area. 

Other outdoor facilities in the project vicinity include Cypress Lawn Memorial Cemetery, a 

private cemetery adjacent to the Colma site. 

Because of the limited height of structures in the project vicinity and the amount of open areas, 

wind and shadow patterns in the project area are largely unaffected by development. 


There are no federal, State, or local regulations governing wind or shadow that apply to the PPSU 

project. Although the City and County of San Francisco (CCSF) regulations govern wind and 

shadow effects within the boundaries of San Francisco, these local regulations do not apply to the 

PPSU project because the project is not located in San Francisco. Nevertheless, an overview of 

CCSF wind and shadow regulations is provided for informational purposes. 

5.10.2.1 Wind 

The San Francisco Planning Code establishes wind comfort and wind hazard criteria for use in 

evaluating new development in four areas of the city: the C3 Downtown Commercial Districts 

(Section 148); the Van Ness Avenue Special Use District (Section 243[c][9]); the Folsom–Main 

Residential/Commercial Special Use District (Section 249.1); and the Downtown Residential 

District (Section 825). Because the proposed project would not be located in any of these areas, 

the wind comfort and wind hazard criteria established in the Planning Code do not apply to the 

project. 





5.10.2.2 Shadow 

San Francisco General Plan 

The Recreation and Open Space Element of the San Francisco General Plan (SF Planning, 1996) 

includes Policy 2.3, related to potential solar access or shading impacts, which states that solar 

access to public open space should be protected. The policy promotes solar access and avoidance 

of shade to maintain the usability of public open spaces. It states that the requirements of 

Planning Code Section 295 apply to the review of projects that could shade San Francisco 

Recreation and Park Department property. Policy 2.3 further states: 

“A number of other open spaces designated in this Element or elsewhere in the 

General Plan are under the jurisdiction of other public agencies, or are privately 

owned and therefore not protected by the Planning Code amendments. These 

spaces should be given other forms of protection to assure they are not shaded 

during the hours of their most intensive use. Any new shading should be 

remedied to the extent feasible by expanding opportunities for public assembly 

and recreation in indoor and outdoor settings.” 

The proposed project would not be located on San Francisco Recreation and Park Department 

property, and would not affect areas addressed in Policy 2.3. Therefore, these policies do not 

apply to the proposed project. 

San Francisco Planning Code 

Planning Code Section 295, adopted in 1984 pursuant to voter approval of Proposition K (also 

known as the Sunlight Ordinance), prohibits the issuance of building permits for structures more 

than 40 feet in height that would cast shade or shadow on property under the jurisdiction of, or 

designated to be acquired by, the Recreation and Park Commission. The statute applies to the 

time of day beginning 1 hour after sunrise and ending 1 hour before sunset at any time of year, 

unless the Planning Commission determines that the shade or shadow would have an 

insignificant adverse impact on the use of such property. The proposed PPSU project would be 

located outside of San Francisco, and there are no parks or open spaces within the project area or 

vicinity that are under the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Recreation and Park Department. 

Therefore, the PPSU project would not be subject to review under Planning Code Section 295. 



The CCSF has not formally adopted significance standards for impacts related to wind and 

shadow, but generally considers that implementation of the proposed project would have a 

significant impact if it were to: 

 

 

Alter wind in a manner that substantially affects public areas; or 

Create new shadow in a manner that substantially affects outdoor recreation facilities or 

other public areas. 






Due to the nature of the proposed project, there would be no construction or operational impacts 

related to the significance criteria for wind and shadow for the reasons described below: 

 

 

Alter wind in a manner that substantially affects public areas. The proposed PPSU project 

would result in upgrades to existing pipelines, which are located below ground in the 

vicinity of the sites. While some manholes and customer service connections extend above 

ground in several locations, they are generally not more than several feet in height. The 

proposed construction activities and equipment could include cranes and noise barriers/ 

walls. These structures would be temporary (short-term) and would not alter wind patterns. 

Project operations would be similar to existing conditions and would not change wind 

patterns. The closest public areas to the project sites, the athletic fields adjacent to the 

Peninsula High School and City of Millbrae open space area, would not experience 

substantial changes in wind due to the project. Therefore, the significance criterion related to 

altering wind in a manner that substantially affects public areas is not applicable. 

Create new shadow in a manner that substantially affects outdoor recreation facilities or 

other public areas. The PPSU project does not propose any features that would substantially 

affect shadow patterns. The existing pipelines are located below ground in the vicinity of the 

sites, and would remain below ground after project implementation. Therefore, the 

significance criterion related to creating new shadow impacts is not applicable. 

5.10.3.3 Construction and Operational Impacts and Mitigation Measures 

As described above, implementation of the proposed project would not result in impacts related 

to wind and shadow. Therefore, no mitigation measures related to this resource topic are 

necessary, and there would be no impact. 


Implementation of the proposed project would not result in cumulative impacts related to wind 

and shadow because the project would not cause any project-specific impacts related to this 

resource topic, and there would be no impact. 


CCSF (City and County of San Francisco), 2012. San Francisco Planning Code. June. 


Francisco General Plan, Recreation and Open Space Element. 






This section evaluates the potential impacts on recreation resources that would result from 

implementation of the Peninsula Pipelines Seismic Upgrade (PPSU) project. Recreational 

resources and potential project-related impacts are described for each of the proposed PPSU 

project sites. Mitigation measures to avoid or reduce adverse impacts are identified, as 

appropriate. 


5.11.1.1 Colma Site 

As shown on Figure 3-2, the Colma site is generally surrounded by commercial uses, with no 

parks or recreational facilities in the area, although a substantial amount of open space is 

provided by the numerous cemeteries in the vicinity. 

5.11.1.2 South San Francisco Site 

As shown on Figure 3-3, the South San Francisco site is within the San Francisco Public Utilities 

Commission (SFPUC) right-of-way (ROW) that extends through the northern edge of the 

California Golf Club of San Francisco. This private golf club was incorporated in 1918, and 

moved to the South San Francisco location (a carefully selected portion of the large former Baden 

farms property) in 1924. The golf course was developed in 1924 to 1925, and it opened for play in 

1926, after the clubhouse was completed. A number of famous golf designers and architects 

worked on this course from the 1920s and into the twenty-first century, including Scott Willie 

Locke, A. Vernon Macan, Alister MacKenzie, Robert Trent Jones, and Kyle Phillips. Golf Club 

Atlas considers the California Golf Club of San Francisco to be one of the five best golf courses in 

the state (Golf Club Atlas, 2012). 

Most of the other surrounding land uses at the South San Francisco site are residential or 

commercial, but two small playgrounds with ball diamonds, Buri Buri Park and Southwood 

Playground, are each approximately mile from the proposed project site. 

5.11.1.3 San Bruno North Site 

There are no parks or recreational facilities in the immediate vicinity of the San Bruno North site. 

Surrounding uses are the Interstate 280 off-ramp, single-family homes and Bayhill Shopping 

Center, as shown on Figure 3-4. 

5.11.1.4 San Bruno South Site 

In the vicinity of the San Bruno South site, the SFPUC ROW south of Whitman Way is an 

undeveloped open area that is used for casual strolling and dog walking by residents of the 

adjacent community. The main recreational resources in the project vicinity include basketball 

courts and a complex of athletic fields originally built to serve the former Crestmoor High School 

campus, which is located west of Courtland Drive (refer to Figure 3-5). These fields currently 





serve multiple recreational uses, including weekday physical education programs associated 

with the small, approximately 275-student, Peninsula High School, as well as soccer games for 

many of the more than 100 youth soccer teams associated with the active San Bruno American 

Youth Soccer Organization (AYSO). AYSO uses the soccer fields most Saturdays and Sundays for 

games, and also holds practices during the week and soccer training for younger children some 

weekday evenings, as well as summer soccer camp programs. As many as 14 teams may use the 

soccer fields at any one time, with the heaviest use occurring from August through November. 

The athletic fields are owned by the San Mateo Union High School District, but the City of San 

Bruno leases and maintains these fields and rents them to other users. The facilities are also used 

year-round as an exercise area for residents of the adjacent residential neighborhood (Carlisle, 

2011; San Bruno AYSO, 2011; McManus, 2011). 

A playground located immediately to the west of the high school is used by Crayon College 

(daycare), which is co-located within the Peninsula High School facilities. 

One of the proposed staging areas at the San Bruno South site is a fenced portion of the northern 

school parking lot, currently used as a maintenance/storage area and located immediately 

adjacent to the outdoor basketball courts. The remaining portion of the parking lot is 

immediately adjacent to the athletic fields; this area is available for parking, and is heavily used 

during sports events (City of San Bruno, 2011b). 

The city-owned seven-acre Buckeye Park is located approximately ½ mile west of the proposed 

staging areas adjacent to the athletic fields. This park, which has a picnic area with a barbeque pit 

and a children’s play area with a slide and climbing equipment, is used primarily by residents of 

the surrounding neighborhood (Carlisle, 2011; City of San Bruno, 2011a). 

5.11.1.5 Millbrae Site 

As shown on Figure 3-6, in the vicinity of the Millbrae site, the SFPUC ROW extends adjacent to 

and through a portion of the Green Hills Country Club, a private-membership club whose 

facilities include an 18-hole golf course, swimming pool, tennis courts, and a club house with a 

pro shop, fully equipped exercise room, and restaurant facilities. The golf course, constructed in 

1930, was designed by Dr. Alister MacKenzie, a world-renowned golf course designer who 

designed more than 30 golf courses in Europe and America, including the famous Augusta 

National Golf Club in Atlanta, Georgia, and Cypress Point Club in Monterey, California. A 

driving range was added around 1992. This golf course is open year-round, with relatively heavy 

use. Its full membership of approximately 400 members had declined to approximately 325 

members in mid-2012 (Green Hills Country Club, 2010; worldgolf.com, 2011; Halligan, 2011; 

Barrett, 2012). 

A City of Millbrae open space area is located north of the golf course and the SFPUC ROW. This 

area is used by local residents for dog walking and other passive recreation activities. An 

unpaved trail extends from Lomita Avenue through the open space to a grassy area behind 

residences on Ridgewood Drive (City of Millbrae, 1998). This trail would be used as an access 

route to the project site. 

Millbrae Meadows Park, located at the terminus of Lynnewood Drive, consists of about 4 acres of 

open space, surrounded by trees. There are no developed amenities, but residents of the adjacent 





community use it as a sports practice field, as well as a place to walk, relax, or walk dogs (City of 

Millbrae, 2011). Portions of this park lie approximately 300 feet west of Ridgewood Drive and 300 

feet north of Larkspur Drive, both of which are proposed access routes. 

The 106-acre Junipero Serra County Park lies north of Lomita Avenue, close to the proposed 

access route that would run through the city-owned open space property. The park is situated 

along a ridge top, providing views of San Francisco Bay and the surrounding communities. Park 

facilities include hiking trails, picnic areas, playgrounds, a volleyball court, and youth camp area 

(San Mateo County Parks, 2009). 

There are also sports fields and playgrounds associated with the Meadows Elementary School 

and the Montessori School campuses. 

5.11.1.6 Common Staging Area 

There are no parks or recreation facilities in the vicinity of the common staging area on SFPUC’s 

Baden Valve Lot. 


There are no federal, State, or local regulations or requirements pertaining to recreational 

resources or facilities that are directly applicable to the proposed PPSU project. 



CCSF has not formally adopted significance standards for impacts related to recreation, but 

generally considers that implementation of the proposed project would have a significant impact 

on recreation if it would: 

 

 

 

Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities 

such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated; 

Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities 

that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment; or 

Physically degrade existing recreational resources. 


Due to the nature of the proposed project, there would be no impacts related to the following 

significance criteria. Therefore, an impact discussion is not provided for these topics for the 







 

Physically degrade existing recreational resources. Existing recreational resources would 

not be affected or physically degraded during project operations. Therefore, this significance 

criterion is not applicable to project operations and is analyzed below under Impact RE-1 

only as it applies to project construction. 



 

 

Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational 

facilities resulting in a substantial physical deterioration of the facility. As described in 

Section 5.4, Population and Housing, the PPSU project would not result in any changes in 

population or housing resources. Therefore, implementation of the project would not result 

in an increase in demand for or use of parks or other recreational facilities in the area. 

Therefore, this significance criterion is not applicable to the proposed project and is not 

discussed further. 

Include recreational facilities or require construction or expansion of recreational facilities 

that might adversely affect the environment. The PPSU project does not propose to construct 

recreational facilities and would not cause an increase in local population that could result in 

the need for new or expanded recreational facilities. Thus, this significance criterion is not 

applicable to the proposed project and is not discussed further. 

To evaluate the PPSU project’s potential to physically degrade recreational resources, this 

analysis considers whether the project would remove or damage existing recreational resources 

directly; disrupt access to recreational resources; or indirectly affect the quality of the recreational 

experience through physical environmental effects such as increased noise or traffic, or changes 

in air quality or aesthetics. 

The analysis focuses on the potential for construction activities to directly or indirectly affect 

recreation resources in the project vicinity. Pipelines that would be replaced are underground, 

and after project construction, the surface would generally be restored to pre-project conditions. 

Therefore, project operations would not affect access to, or use, of recreation resources; recreation 

impacts during project operation are not discussed further. 


Table 5.11-1 lists the proposed project’s impacts to recreation resources, along with 

determinations of significance. 


Impact RE-1: The proposed project could temporarily degrade existing recreational uses 

during construction. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) 

Temporary, direct impacts on established recreation resources could result if construction 

activities overlap geographically with existing recreational facilities or disrupt access to such 

facilities. Construction could indirectly degrade recreation resources as a result of temporary 

impacts to visual aesthetics or air quality, or increases in noise and traffic. 





Table 5.11-1 

Summary of Impacts – Recreation Resources 


Impacts 

Colma 

South 




Bruno 

North 


Bruno 

South 

Millbrae 

Common 

Staging 

Area 

Impact RE-1: The proposed 

project could temporarily 

degrade existing 

recreational uses during 

construction. 

Impact C-RE: Construction 

of the project would not 

result in a cumulatively 


cumulative impacts on 

recreational resources or 

uses. 

NI LS NI LS LSM NI 

NI LS NI LS LS NI 

Notes: 

LSM = Less than Significant with Mitigation 

LS = Less than Significant 

NI – No Impact 

Because there are no recreation resources in the vicinity of the Colma site, the San Bruno North 

site, and the common staging area, activities at these sites would not affect any recreation 

resources directly or indirectly, and they are not discussed further, and there would be no 

impact. 

South San Francisco Site (Less than Significant) 

The proposed construction zone would be located within the SFPUC ROW that extends along the 

northern edge of the California Golf Club of San Francisco, approximately 50 feet north of an 

active play area. The green would be separated from the proposed construction zone by a fence, a 

strip of trees, and mature vegetation. Construction activities would not directly affect any greens, 

fairways, or other developed facilities at the golf course. Instead, construction would mainly 

affect the ROW where it lies within a landscaped strip of land at the intersection of Westborough 

Boulevard and West Orange Avenue that is not used for any active recreational purpose. As 

described in Section 5.16, Hydrology and Water Quality, an irrigation water supply well used by 

the golf club, located approximately 150 feet southwest of the South San Francisco site, would not 

be affected by the PPSU project. Indirect impacts associated with project-related noise, dust, or 

traffic could result in a slight reduction in enjoyment of the recreational experience in the vicinity 

of the construction zone; however, golfers would not linger in that area for long in the course of 

playing a game. Thus, the impact to recreation resources at this site would be less than 

significant. 





San Bruno South Site (Less than Significant) 

The portion of the project construction zone located south of Whitman Way would be located on 

privately owned undeveloped open land (within the SFPUC ROW) that is not a formal park but 

is currently used for dog walking and passive recreation use. However, because no developed or 

heavily used recreation facilities would be removed or disrupted, and because construction 

activity would be temporary, this impact would be less than significant. The proposed staging 

area within the unpaved SFPUC ROW directly east of Courtland Drive and adjacent to the San 

Bruno Chinese Church is unofficially used for parking during soccer practices and/or games; it is 

immediately across from the athletic fields. Although parking is not permitted at this location, 

vehicles frequently are driven over the curb along Courtland Drive, and parked perpendicular to 

the roadway. The proposed staging area is shown on Figure 3-5. As described in Section 5.6, 

Transportation and Circulation, there is adequate parking supply at the Peninsula High School to 

accommodate the demand associated with use of the athletic fields. The athletic fields, basketball 

courts, and associated parking resources adjacent to the Peninsula High School would not be 

directly impacted by the project. 

Construction-related noise and traffic could indirectly affect the recreational experience at the 

athletic fields and basketball courts. However, such impacts would be temporary in duration and 

relatively minor. As described above, there is adequate parking to accommodate demand for 

these facilities and the project would not directly impact these facilities. Additionally, indirect 

impacts to recreational facilities from construction noise, dust, and traffic would be temporary 

and minor. Therefore, the project impacts to recreation resources at the San Bruno South site 

would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required. 

Although the impact would not be significant, implementation of Mitigation Measure M-TR-3: 

Traffic Control Plan (see Section 5.6, Transportation and Circulation) would reduce any indirect 

adverse impacts related to traffic and circulation. 


PPSU project activities include tree removal and pipeline upgrades at the Millbrae site. Tree 

removal would occur in the fall of 2014 for about 1.5 months. Construction activities are 

scheduled to occur between mid-April to mid-July 2015, for a duration of about 3 months. 

The trail that extends from Lomita Avenue through the City of Millbrae open space area is 

proposed to be used as an access road for the PPSU project; this would disrupt its recreational 

use. To the extent feasible and as determined by the City of Millbrae, the trail would be open to 

the public for use when it is not required for construction access. The disruption in access along 

the trail would be temporary (approximately 4.5 months), and during this time it would remain 

open to the public to the extent feasible. Additionally, there are several other open spaces/parks 

in the neighborhood (including the nearby Millbrae Meadows Park and Junipero Serra County 

Park) that can be used for dog walking and other passive recreation activities. Therefore, the 

temporary loss of this open space would be a less-than-significant impact. 

Construction activities (pipeline replacement and truck turnaround/staging) would displace a 

portion (a strip measuring approximately 50 feet by 150 feet) of the active fairway in the vicinity 

of the fifth hole of the Green Hills Country Club golf course for a period of approximately 





4.5 months. In addition, staging areas are proposed along the eastern and southern edges of the 

construction zone, including a portion of the driving range, as shown on Figure 3-6, in Chapter 3, 

Project Description. During tree removal and pipeline construction, the SFPUC proposes to use 

the driving range at Green Hills Country Club as an access route, requiring complete temporary 

closure of the driving range for the safety of construction workers. The driving range was not 

part of the original Green Hills Country Club golf course; it was constructed circa 1992 (Barrett, 

2012). Closure of the driving range would temporarily (approximately 4.5 months) make this 

amenity at the golf club unavailable, and would diminish the use of this well-used facility; but 

alternative driving ranges are available in the site vicinity. 1 Temporary closure of the driving 

range would not affect the ability to complete a round of golf on the Green Hills course. 

However, the obstruction of the use of the fifth hole from PPSU project construction would be a 

significant impact to this recreational resource. 

This impact would be reduced with implementation of Mitigation Measure M-RE-1: 

Coordination with Green Hills Country Club Facility Managers, which requires coordination of 

project activities with the golf course to reduce schedule conflicts and minimize the project’s use 

of the golf course fairways and other facilities. With appropriate notice, golf course managers 

could make temporary arrangements to enable continued course play (e.g. rearranging course 

features to allow continued play at the fifth hole; constructing a temporary hole; or playing one 

hole twice should the fifth hole be closed temporarily). These arrangements would minimize the 

inconvenience to the club’s members, and allow continued use of the golf course. With 

implementation of this mitigation measure, temporary construction impacts to the golf course 

would be less than significant with mitigation. 

Mitigation Measure M-RE-1: Coordination with Green Hills Country Club Facility 

Managers 

This mitigation measure applies to the Millbrae site. The SFPUC shall work with the 

Green Hills Country Club prior to initiation of project activities on the golf course 

property, and shall coordinate with the club to implement measures that will facilitate 

maximum continued use of golf course facilities during project construction. Staging 

areas and access routes should be located to avoid use of fairways, where practicable. 

Continued play of the fifth hole (adjacent to the construction zone and staging area) 

should be allowed, to the extent feasible. The access road through the driving range 

should be aligned to the maximum extent practicable to avoid sensitive, highly 

developed and expensive features such as the chipping green and unique bunkers, such 

as deep sand traps with steep slopes. In addition, alternatives to allow the continued use 

of the fifth hole should be considered. 


Because PPSU facilities would be constructed underground within the existing SFPUC ROW, 

project operation would not affect long-term access to or use of existing recreation resources or 

1 Burlingame Golf Center in Burlingame, San Bruno Golf Center in San Bruno, Mariner’s Point Golf Course in Foster 

City, Crystal Springs Golf Course in Burlingame, and Ocean View Driving Range in Half Moon Bay offer more than 

250 practice tees combined (CBS, 2012; Golf Link, 2013). 





facilities. Also, future project operations would not cause physical environmental impacts 

resulting in indirect effects on recreational uses. Vehicle traffic would not increase as a result of 

project operations; there would be no increase in emissions or noise; and lands would be 

generally restored to the previous condition, or to conditions specified in or in accordance with 

existing easements or agreements. Therefore, the proposed project would not have an effect on 

recreation resources as a result of project operations, and there would be no impact. 


Impact C-RE: Construction of the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively 

considerable contribution to cumulative impacts on recreational resources and uses. 


The geographic scope for potential cumulative recreation impacts encompasses recreational 

facilities in the vicinity of the PPSU project sites, including the access roads. 

Cumulative impacts related to degradation of existing recreational resources could be significant 

if the construction of the PPSU project and other cumulative projects overlapped, and 

degradation of existing recreational resources were to occur. Of the projects identified for the 

cumulative impact analysis, only one—599 Cedar Avenue—would result in a slight increase in 

demand for recreation facilities in the study region, as a result of constructing 14 new single 

family homes in San Bruno. The other projects, like PPSU, are facility or infrastructure 

replacement or improvement facilities that would not increase population, and therefore would 

not result in increased demand for recreation resources. The construction of 14 new homes could 

result in a significant impact if recreation resources in the region are being used to capacity so 

that the demand associated with these additional households could not be met. However, 

numerous other recreational resources are available in the region and are likely to be able to 

accommodate this small additional increase in demand without deterioration in quality. 

None of the cumulative projects listed in Table 5.1-1 are located close enough to the recreational 

facilities impacted by the PPSU project to generate additional construction-related noise, fugitive 

dust, diesel emissions, and traffic that could affect the use of or access to these recreational 

resources. The Harry Tracy Water Treatment Plant (HTWTP) project would affect a swim club 

and regional equestrian facilities, while PPSU does not affect any of these types of recreation 

facilities. Noise associated with HTWTP construction would indirectly affect the recreation 

experience at Junipero Serra County Park and the San Andreas Trail. However, the PPSU project 

would not contribute to impacts on these resources. 

As discussed above under Impact RE-1, construction of the PPSU project could cause temporary 

adverse effects on several specific recreation resources located in the project vicinity, including 

use of the athletic fields near the San Bruno South site, the City of Millbrae open space area, and 

the Green Hills Country Club golf course at the Millbrae site. The City of Millbrae open space 

area is used by neighbors for walking/dog walking, and the park is not considered a regional 

recreation resource. For the most part, the project-related impacts are both temporary and minor. 

Therefore, the PPSU project would not contribute cumulatively to degradation of major regional 

recreational resources. To the extent that there may be some shift in recreational resource 

demand during project construction due to temporary closure or restrictions to walking trails or 

golf facilities in the vicinity of the construction, such effects would be temporary and unlikely to 





impact any particular resource greatly. Therefore, the project would not be expected to have any 

substantial adverse impact on other available recreation resources. 

The cumulative projects, combined with the PPSU project, could result in a minor temporary 

inconvenience to recreation users, but would not increase recreation demand or result in longterm 

degradation of existing facilities. Therefore, cumulative impacts to regional recreation 

resources would be less than significant. 


Barrett, Walter, Golf Course Superintendent, Green Hills Country Club, 2012. Interview with 

Mara Feeney of Mara Feeney & Associates. July 9. 

Carlisle, Jackie, City of San Bruno Community Services Department, Parks and Recreation 

Division, 2011. Telephone conversation with Mara Feeney of Mara Feeney & Associates. May 20. 

CBS, 2012. Best Driving Ranges in the Peninsula. Available online at: http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal. 

com/top-lists/best-driving-ranges-in-the-peninsula/. Accessed February 12, 2013. 

City of Millbrae, 1998. City of Millbrae General Plan, 1998-2015. Adopted November 24, 1998. 

City of Millbrae, 2011. City of Millbrae Parks Division, Meadows Park Webpage. Available online 

at: http://www.ci.millbrae.ca.us/index.aspx?page=273. Accessed May 12, 2011. 

City of San Bruno, 2011a. City of San Bruno Community Services Department, Parks Corporation 

Yard Webpage. Available online at: http://www.sanbruno.ca.gov/parks_locations.html. Accessed 

May 19, 2010. 

City of San Bruno, 2011b. City of San Bruno Planning Commission Staff Report, Item No. 5.A, 

(Request for Conditional Use Permit, 300 Piedmont Avenue). September 2011. 

Golf Club Atlas, 2012. California Golf Club of San Francisco Webpage. Available online at: http:// 

www.golfclubatlas.com/courses-by-country/usa/california-golf-club-of-san-franciso/. Accessed 

May 29, 2012. 

Golf Link, 2013. Burlingame Golf Driving Ranges and Practice Facilities, and San Bruno Golf 

Driving Ranges and Practice Facilities. Available online at: http://www.golflink.com/golf-drivingranges/state.aspx?state=CA. 

Accessed February 12, 2013. 

Green Hills Country Club, 2010. Green Hills Country Club, About the Club Webpage. Available 

online at: http://www.greenhillscc.com/club/scripts/public/public.asp?GRP=15905&NS=PUBLIC. 

Accessed December 6, 2010. 

Halligan, General Manager, Green Hills Country Club, 2001. E-mail correspondence with Mara 

Feeney of Mara Feeney & Associates. May 17. 

McManus, Elizabeth, Deputy Superintendent, San Mateo Union High School District, 2011. 

Telephone conversation with Mara Feeney of Mara Feeney & Associates. May 20. 





San Bruno AYSO (San Bruno American Youth Soccer Organization), 2011. San Bruno AYSO 

Spring Newsletter 2011. Available online at: http://www.sanbrunoayso.org/Documents/2011_ 

newsletter_spring.pdf. Accessed May 20, 2011. 

San Mateo County Parks, 2009. Junipero Serra: A San Mateo County Park. July, 2009. Available 

online at: http://www.co.sanmateo.ca.us/Attachments/parks/Files/Brochures/JuniperoSerra 

Brochure.web.pdf. Accessed May 20, 2011. 

worldgolf.com, 2011. Alister MacKenzie Courses Built Webpage. Available online at: http:// 

www.worldgolf.com/golf-architects/alister-mackenzie.html. Accessed May 20, 2011. 





This section describes existing utilities and service systems in the vicinity of the proposed 

Peninsula Pipelines Seismic Upgrade (PPSU) project, and evaluates the potential utilities and 

service systems impacts of the proposed project. Mitigation measures to avoid or reduce adverse 

impacts are identified, as appropriate. 


The proposed project, including a common staging area, would entail upgrades to six pipeline 

segments located at five different sites within the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission 

(SFPUC) right-of-way (ROW). These sites are located in the Town of Colma, the cities of South 

San Francisco, San Bruno, and Millbrae, and unincorporated San Mateo County. 

This section includes a description of utility lines and infrastructure within the project vicinity, as 

well as solid waste disposal facilities within the greater San Francisco Bay Area that could be 

used to dispose of construction-related wastes. 

5.12.1.1 Utilities 

Natural Gas 

The Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) provides natural gas to the study area. PG&E is 

regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). There are three regional gas 

lines that extend from Milpitas to San Francisco (City of San Bruno, 2009). Table 5.12-1 shows the 

distances from the project sites to the nearest natural gas line. 

Table 5.12-1 

Distance to PG&E Natural Gas Lines 

Project Site 

Approximate Distance to 

Nearest Gas Line 

Colma 

0.85 mile 

South San Francisco 0.15 mile (800 feet) 1 

Common Staging Area in South San Francisco 0.08 mile (400 feet) 1 

San Bruno North 0.07 mile (385 feet) 1 


Millbrae 

0.32 mile 

0.66 mile 

Source: PG&E, 2012. 

Note: 

1 Distance provided in feet as well as miles for distances less than ¼ mile. 





Electricity 

PG&E is the primary provider of electrical power to the Town of Coma (Town of Colma, 1999) 

and the cities of South San Francisco (City of South San Francisco, 2011), San Bruno, (City of San 

Bruno, 2009), and Millbrae (City of Millbrae, 1998). 

Electrical power lines are located at the project sites as follows: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There are no overhead or underground power lines at the Colma site. 

Overhead distribution lines cross the South San Francisco site. Electrical power is provided to 

the City of San Bruno from eight different distribution feeders, four of them from the Sneath 

Lane substation in San Bruno (City of San Bruno, 2009). 

The common staging area in South San Francisco is located on the SFPUC’s Baden Valve Lot. 

The valve lot contains several underground power lines (SF Planning, 2008); no overhead 

power lines are located on the site. Overhead distribution lines are located west of the SFPUC 

ROW in the back yards of the residences on Fairway Drive. 

Underground PG&E electrical cables are located at the San Bruno North site. There are no 

overhead power lines in the San Bruno North site. 

Overhead distribution lines are located west of the SFPUC ROW at the San Bruno South site. 

Underground electric lines cross through the site. 

Overhead distribution lines cross through the Millbrae site adjacent to Ridgeway Drive and 

at the end of the trail that extends through the City of Millbrae open space area from Lomita 

Avenue to the SFPUC ROW. 

Telecommunications 

AT&T (formerly Pacific Bell and SBC) provides telephone service (land line) to the Town of 

Colma (Town of Colma, 1999) and the cities of South San Francisco (City of South San Francisco, 

2011) and Millbrae (City of Millbrae, 2011a). The City of San Bruno General Plan does not identify 

a specific service provider. 

Within the project sites, telecommunications infrastructure includes overhead and underground 

lines. There are overhead telecommunications lines at the South San Francisco and Millbrae sites. 

There are no overhead lines at the Colma or San Bruno North sites. At the San Bruno South site, 

there are underground telecommunication lines in the staging and spoils area and overhead 

telecommunication lines west of the SFPUC ROW. 

Stormwater Drainage 

Town of Colma 

Stormwater runoff from the Town of Colma flows by gravity through open channels and culverts 

to Colma Creek. The creek exits Colma as an open channel through South San Francisco, and 

flows into San Francisco Bay (Town of Colma, 1999). 





Stormwater at the Colma site is conveyed via an underground culvert, which is a tributary to 

Colma Creek, and via a concrete-lined v-ditch, which conveys runoff to nearby storm drains. 


The sewer system in South San Francisco includes gravity lines and force mains that combine 

both wastewater and stormwater runoff (Cal Water, 2011). 

A culverted section of Twelve Mile Creek, which is a tributary to Colma Creek, extends through 

the South San Francisco site, and an underground storm drain conveys water from a portion of 

the site north of Westborough Drive. 


At the San Bruno South site, a concrete-lined v-ditch conveys water near the site to a storm drain 

in Whitman Way. 


Storm sewers in Millbrae collect and channel runoff into the Lomita Creek, Green Hills Creek, 

and Millbrae Creek channels, where it is eventually transported to San Francisco Bay (City of 

Millbrae, 1998). 

At the Millbrae site, stormwater is primarily conveyed through concrete-lined v-ditches. 

Stormwater drains to Bertocchi Lane in a concrete-lined ditch, installed as a catchment to carry 

runoff from the slope to an underground storm drain system at the end of the lane. Behind 

residences on Ridgewood Drive near the Millbrae site, a concrete-lined horizontal ditch drains 

the slope. At the eastern end of Larkspur Drive, a concrete-lined ditch receives water from two 

culverts from the residential area. The ditch flows into an unnamed creek tributary, and 

eventually goes underground. Additionally, an underground storm drain crosses the project site 

in the Green Hills Country Club area. 

Water Supply 

By contractual agreement, the SFPUC provides water delivery services via the existing Crystal 

Springs/San Andreas Transmission System to wholesale customers in San Mateo County and the 

San Francisco Peninsula region. The wholesale customers consist of 24 cities and water districts, 

plus two private utilities in San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Alameda counties, all of which are 

represented by the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA). The California 

Water Service Company (Cal Water) (which provides water to the Town of Colma) is a member 

of BAWSCA, as are the cities of San Bruno and Millbrae. 

Cal Water provides the Town of Colma with water purchased from SFPUC, and with local 

groundwater (Town of Colma, 1999). 

In the City of South San Francisco, the Westborough Water District provides water to the area 

west of Interstate 280 (I-280), and Cal Water provides water to the portion of the city located east 

of I-280 (City of South San Francisco, 2011). The South San Francisco site is east of I-280, and Cal 

Water is therefore the provider in the project area. 





The City of San Bruno provides water to San Bruno, including the area around the San Bruno 

North and San Bruno South sites. San Bruno owns, operates, and maintains the potable water 

distribution system that serves drinking water within the city limits. Water supplied through San 

Bruno’s distribution system is a combination of groundwater pumped at San Bruno’s four 

groundwater supply wells, and water purchased from the SFPUC and the North Coast County 

Water District. San Bruno has four connections to the SFPUC water supply system, and one 

connection to the North Coast County Water District water supply system (Erler & Kalinowski, 

Inc., 2011). Underground City of San Bruno water pipelines cross through the San Bruno South 

site. 

The City of Millbrae provides water to Millbrae, including the area surrounding the Millbrae site. 

Underground City of Millbrae water pipelines cross through the Millbrae site. An 8-inch cast iron 

water main extends through the Millbrae site, from Banbury Lane to Hacienda Way (Riddell, 

2012). 

Within the project sites, segments of drinking water transmission pipelines would be seismically 

upgraded. These pipelines are the SFPUC’s San Andreas Pipeline No. 2 (SAPL2), San Andreas 

Pipeline No. 3 (SAPL3), and Sunset Supply Branch Pipeline (SSBPL). 

Wastewater 

Town of Coma 

The Town of Colma, through joint powers agreements, uses the South San Francisco/San Bruno 

Sewage Treatment Plant, described below, and the North San Mateo County Sanitation District 

Treatment Plant. The Colma site is located in the portion of Colma served by 10-inch, 8-inch, and 

6-inch lines connecting to a 10-inch force main along the unincorporated portion of A Street. A 

sewer pump station is located at F Street. The flow is then sent to the North San Mateo County 

Sanitation District Treatment Plant, which is located near John Daly and Lake Merced 

boulevards. An agreement with the North San Mateo County Sanitation District allows for 

treatment of 490,000 gallons per day of wastewater, with annual growth increments. The plant 

has a design capacity of 10.3 million gallons per day (mgd). 


The South San Francisco/San Bruno Sewage Treatment Plant was constructed in the early 1970s, 

and is jointly operated by the cities of South San Francisco and San Bruno. The plant was last 

upgraded in 1997 to provide capacity for projected wastewater flows from South San Francisco, 

San Bruno, and parts of Colma and Daly City through the year 2015 (Erler & Kalinowski, Inc., 

2011). The plant’s design capacity allows for 13 mgd of dry-weather flow and 61.8 mgd of peak 

wet-weather flow (Erler & Kalinowski, Inc., 2011). Treated wastewater is discharged from a 

60-inch outfall pipeline 2 miles out into San Francisco Bay, via a joint outfall pipe shared by 

Colma, South San Francisco, San Bruno, Millbrae, Burlingame, and the San Francisco 

International Airport (City of San Bruno, 2009). 

As mentioned above, the sewer system in South San Francisco includes gravity lines and force 

mains that combine both wastewater and stormwater runoff (Cal Water, 2011). 






The City of San Bruno is responsible for the wastewater collection system, and ensures 

compliance with all permit requirements in the city (City of San Bruno, 2009). The sanitary sewer 

system consists of approximately 150 miles of pipeline, and seven lift stations. San Bruno 

operates and maintains the wastewater collection system, which includes gravity pipelines, lift 

stations, and force mains (Erler & Kalinowski, Inc., 2011). Wastewater is sent to the South San 

Francisco/San Bruno Sewage Treatment Plant. 


The City of Millbrae’s Public Works department is responsible for 56 miles of sewer lines, 

21 miles of storm drains, and 3 miles of open creeks and ditches (City of Millbrae, 2011a).The City 

of Millbrae provides wastewater collection and treatment services throughout its jurisdiction, 

and for Capuchino High School in San Bruno. Wastewater is collected in gravity flow lines, 

assisted by lift stations and connected to force mains where necessary, and then conveyed to the 

Millbrae Wastewater Treatment Plant, located at 400 Millbrae Avenue, just west of El Camino 

Real (City of Millbrae, 2011a). 

Solid Waste Disposal 

In the Town of Colma, solid waste is collected by Browning Ferris Industries. The main solid 

waste disposal site for San Mateo County is the Ox Mountain Landfill, located north of 

Highway 92 (Town of Colma, 1999). Ox Mountain Landfill has a remaining capacity of 

approximately 44.6 million cubic yards, and is projected to close January 1, 2018 (CalRecycle, 

2011). 

Solid waste is collected from South San Francisco homes and businesses, and then processed at 

the South San Francisco Scavenger Company’s materials recovery facility and transfer station. 

Materials that cannot be recycled or composted are transferred to the Ox Mountain Sanitary 

Landfill (City of South San Francisco, 1999). 

In the City of San Bruno, garbage collection is provided by San Bruno Garbage Company. San 

Bruno Garbage Company is part of Recology Peninsula Services. Recology Peninsula Services 

provides debris box, compactor, and commercial recycling services throughout San Mateo 

County (Recology, 2011). Materials that cannot be recycled or composted are transferred to the 

Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill. 

South San Francisco Scavenger Company is franchised by the City of Millbrae to collect and 

dispose of refuse in Millbrae (City of Millbrae, 2011c). Materials that cannot be recycled or 

composted are transferred to the Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill. 


The section below describes applicable regulations pertaining to utilities and services within the 

project area. For a list of specific permits required for implementation of the proposed project, 

refer to Section 3.10, Required Permits. 






No federal regulations related to utilities and service systems are applicable to the proposed 

project. 

5.12.2.2 State 

California Public Utilities Commission 

The CPUC has exclusive power and sole authority to regulate privately owned and investorowned 

utilities. The CPUC does not regulate publicly owned utilities, such as the SFPUC. The 

CPUC regulates the electricity provider, PG&E. This exclusive power extends to all aspects of the 

location, design, construction, maintenance, and operation of regulated utility facilities. The 

CPUC requires regulated utilities to work closely with local governments and to give due 

consideration to their concerns. 

California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 

The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (Public Resources Code [PRC], Division 30), 

enacted through Assembly Bill (AB) 939 and modified by subsequent legislation, required all 

California cities and counties to implement programs to reduce, recycle, and compost at least 

50 percent of wastes by the year 2000 (PRC Section 41780). The State determines compliance with this 

mandate to divert 50 percent of generated waste (which includes both disposed and diverted waste) 

through a complex formula. This formula requires cities and counties to conduct empirical studies to 

establish a “base year” waste generation rate against which future diversion is measured. The actual 

determination of the diversion rate in subsequent years is arrived at through deduction, not direct 

measurement: instead of counting the amount of material recycled and composted, the city or county 

tracks the amount of material disposed at landfills, and then subtracts the disposed amount from the 

base-year amount. The difference is assumed to be diverted (PRC Section 41780.2). 

Utility Notification Requirements 

Title 8, Section 1541, of the California Code of Regulations requires excavators to determine the 

approximate locations of subsurface installations such as sewer, telephone, fuel, electric, and 

water lines prior to excavation. Contractors working in the vicinity of utilities, both below- and 

aboveground, are required by Article 2 of the California Code of Regulations 4216 to contact a 

regional notification center at least 2 days prior to excavation of any subsurface installations. The 

center for northern California is the Underground Service Alert. After receiving notification, the 

Underground Service Alert notifies utilities that may have buried lines within 1,000 feet of an 

excavation. The excavator is required to probe and expose underground facilities by hand prior 

to using power equipment for trenching and excavation. The California Government Code 

(Sections 4216 et seq.) requires owners and operators of underground utilities to become 

members of and participate in a regional notification center. 

5.12.2.3 Local 

The Town of Colma adopted Ordinance No. 569 to comply with the Integrated Waste 

Management Act. The ordinance requires that at least 50 percent of the waste tonnage from any 





demolition project where the waste includes concrete and asphalt, (or 15 percent where there is 

no concrete and/or asphalt) be recycled and/or reused to meet the terms and conditions of the 

ordinance. In addition to demolition, new construction, remodeling, and re-roofing of homes 

requires 50 percent recycling of waste tonnage (Town of Colma, n.d.). 

The South San Francisco General Plan (1999) includes a goal to reduce the generation of solid waste to 

slow the filling of local and regional landfills, in accordance with the California Integrated Waste 

Management Act of 1989. Additionally, the City of South San Francisco Municipal Code, 

Chapter 15.60 requires the diversion of 100 percent of inert solids 1 from landfills, and a minimum of 

50 percent of the remaining construction and demolition debris (City of South San Francisco, n.d.). 

The City of San Bruno Municipal Code, Chapter 10.23, Recycling and Diversion of Debris from 

Construction and Demolition, identifies salvage, diversion, and reporting requirements for waste 

disposal (City of San Bruno, n.d.). The code contains salvage requirements to recover the 

maximum feasible amount of salvageable designated recyclable and reusable materials prior to 

demolition. The code also requires a 50 percent diversion rate for construction and demolition 

debris from commercial and residential buildings. The salvage requirement is applicable to the 

PPSU project, but the diversion rates are not. 

The City of Millbrae operates a Recycling and Waste Prevention Program. The program was formed 

in 1994 to help meet the State-mandated goal to reduce the amount of garbage placed in landfills by 

50 percent by the end of the 2000. Since 1999, Millbrae has achieved the 50 percent requirement, and 

has a 67 percent waste reduction and recycling rate as of 2011 (City of Millbrae, 2011b). The Public 

Works Department, as part of its conditions of approval, requires 50 percent recycling of all waste 

generated for a project by weight, with at least 25 percent achieved through reuse and recycling of 

materials other than source-separated dirt, concrete, and asphalt (City of Millbrae, 2012). 

San Mateo County adopted Ordinance No. 04099 on February 26, 2002, to reduce construction 

and demolition debris (San Mateo County, 2002). The ordinance requires 100 percent of inert 

solids, and at least 50 percent of the remaining construction and demolition debris tonnage, to be 

diverted from local landfills. It also requires the project proponent to develop and submit a Waste 

Management Plan. This ordinance applies to unincorporated areas of the county. 




impacts related to utilities and service systems, but generally considers that implementation of 


 

Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control 

Board; 

1 The City of South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 15.60.010 defines inert solids as “asphalt, concrete, rock, 

stone, brick, sand, soil and fines.” 





 

 

 

 

 

 

Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or 

expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant 

environmental effects; 

Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or the expansion of 

existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects; 

Have insufficient water supply available to serve the project from existing entitlements and 

resources, or require new or expanded water supply resources or entitlements; 

Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that would serve the project 

that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the 

provider’s existing commitments; 

Be served by a landfill with insufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s 

solid waste disposal needs; or 

Be out of compliance with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid 

waste. 

Due to the nature of the proposed project, this Environmental Impact Report applies the 

following additional criterion (in addition to those described above), and considers that the 

project would have a significant effect on utilities and service systems if it were to: 

 

Disrupt operation of or require relocation of regional or local utilities. 


Because of the nature of the proposed project, several of the significance criteria noted above are 

not applicable. Therefore, an impact discussion is not provided for these topics for the reasons 



 

 

 

Have insufficient water supply available to serve the project. The proposed project would 

not require additional water supply or require new or expanded water supply resources or 

entitlements. Therefore, the significance criterion related to sufficient water supply is not 

applicable to operation of the proposed project and this significance criterion is discussed 

below under Impact UT-3 only as it applies to project construction activities. 

Be served by a landfill with insufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s 

solid waste disposal needs or be out of compliance with statutes and regulations related to 

solid waste. Upon completion of project construction, the proposed project would not 

generate solid waste requiring disposal. Therefore, the significance criteria related to solid 

waste and landfill capacity are not applicable to project operations, and are discussed below 

under Impact UT-4 and Impact UT-5 only as they relate to project construction. 

Disrupt operation of or require relocation of regional or local utilities. Once project 

construction is complete, the sites would be restored to pre-construction conditions, and 





relocation of utilities would not be required. Therefore, impacts on disruption or relocation of 

utilities due to project operations are not discussed further. This significance criterion is 

discussed below under Impact UT-1 and Impact UT-2 only as it applies to project 




 

 

Exceed wastewater treatment requirements, result in the construction or expansion of new 

water or wastewater treatment facilities, or result in a determination by the wastewater 

treatment provider that there is insufficient capacity to serve the project. The project does 

not include the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or stormwater 

drainage facilities; therefore, the significance criteria associated with construction of these 

facilities are not applicable. During construction, dewatering may be required for 

groundwater, rainwater, or other water that enters trenches and pits. This water would be 

pumped out of the trench or pit; stored, tested, and treated to meet required standards; and 

then discharged to a nearby sanitary sewer, stormwater culvert, creek, or overland, similar to 

the initial pipeline shutdown performed by the SFPUC. Discharge rates would not exceed 

3,500 gallons per minute per pipeline, and permits would be requested from the appropriate 

wastewater agency prior to discharge to the sanitary sewer. As described in Section 5.16, 

Hydrology and Water Quality, discharges would be conducted in compliance with the 

effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, the SFPUC’s Erosion Control Standard 

Operating Procedure, and the SFPUC’s Policies and Procedures for Transmission System 

Discharges. Discharge of water from pipeline dewatering activities, hydrostatic testing, and 

pipeline disinfection would be performed in accordance with the requirements of the 

Statewide General Construction Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with 

Construction Activity issued by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB); the 

SWRCB’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit (Order 

2003-0003-DWQ) for low-threat water quality discharges to land; and municipal stormwater 

permits. For these reasons, the significance criteria related to wastewater treatment and 

capacity are not applicable to construction or operation of the proposed project and are not 


Require or result in the construction or expansion of stormwater drainage facilities. The 

project does not propose to construct or expand stormwater drainage facilities. As discussed 

under Impact HY-3 and Impact HY-4 in Section 5.16, Hydrology and Water Quality, the 

construction contractor would be responsible for requesting a permit from the appropriate 

wastewater agency prior to discharge to the sanitary sewer. Discharge of water from 

dewatering activities must be performed in accordance with the requirements of the 

Statewide General Construction Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with 

Construction Activity issued by the SWRCB; the SWRCB’s NPDES General Permit (Order 

2003-0003-DWQ) for low-threat water quality discharges to land; and municipal stormwater 

permits. Thus, project implementation would not cause an exceedance of existing stormwater 

drainage capacity that would necessitate the construction or expansion of infrastructure. 

Therefore, the significance criterion related to the construction or expansion of stormwater 

drainage facilities is not applicable to the construction or operation of the proposed project 





and is not discussed further. For additional discussion of the proposed project’s effects on 

stormwater drainage facilities, see Section 5.16, Hydrology and Water Quality. 

The analysis of project effects related to utilities and service systems below addresses temporary 

construction-related impacts. During construction, short-term temporary disruption of service 

could occur if existing utilities were accidentally damaged during utility relocation or other 

project-related construction activities. 

The analysis below also identifies potential impacts related to landfill capacity resulting from the 

disposal of construction waste, as well as the ability of local jurisdictions to comply with federal, 

State, and local landfill statutes. The largest potential source of solid waste would be excavated 

soil and rock material. 


Table 5.12-2 lists the proposed project’s utility and service system impacts and significance 

determinations. 

Table 5.12-2 

Summary of Impacts – Utilities and Service Systems 

Impacts 

Impact UT-1: Project construction could result in a substantial 

adverse effect related to disruption of utility operations or 

accidental damage to existing utilities. 


adverse effect related to the relocation of regional or local utilities. 

Impact UT-3: Project construction would not result in a substantial 

adverse effect related to water supply availability. 

Impact UT-4: Project construction would not result in a substantial 

adverse effect related to landfill capacity. 


adverse effect related to compliance with federal, State, and local 

statutes and regulations pertaining to solid waste. 

Impact C-UT: Construction of the proposed project could result in 

a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative impacts 

related to disruption or relocation of utilities. 

Significance 

Determination 

LSM 

LSM 

LS 

LS 

LSM 

LSM 

Notes: 


LSM = Less than Significant with Mitigation 






Impact UT-1: Project construction could result in a substantial adverse effect related to 

disruption of utility operations or accidental damage to existing utilities. (Less than 

Significant with Mitigation) 

Excavation activities, and removal and installation of the proposed pipelines could result in 

accidental damage to existing regional or local utility lines or disruption of utility services. 

Pipeline replacement would result in excavation of approximately 4,540 lineal feet (2,590 feet of 

SAPL2, 1,050 feet of SAPL3, and 900 feet of SSBPL). Excavated trenches would range between 

9 feet and 32 feet deep. 

The use of cranes and other construction equipment to remove pipeline segments could result in 

accidental damage to existing overhead utility lines. In addition, overhead utility poles and 

underground utility lines along area roadways could be susceptible to accidental damage from 

the movement of large construction equipment and vehicles throughout the project sites. 

As described in Section 5.12.1, above, a number of underground utility lines cross the project 

sites, including electrical and telecommunication lines, and several water supply pipelines. As 

indicated in the engineering design drawings associated with the proposed project (G&E 

Engineering Systems, Inc., 2012; Meridian Surveying Engineering, Inc., 2011; and Chaudhary & 

Associates, Inc., 2011) and as shown by field reconnaissance, existing utilities in the project sites 

with the potential to conflict with the proposed project include: 

Colma Site 

 

 

An unspecified utility line 

SAPL2 and SAPL3 


 

 

 

Overhead electric distribution lines 

Overhead telecommunications lines 



 

 

Underground electric power lines 



 

 

 

 

 

Underground electric power lines 

Overhead distribution lines located west of the SFPUC ROW 

Underground telecommunication lines in the staging and spoils area 

Underground City of San Bruno water pipelines 






Millbrae Site 

 

 

 

Overhead electric distribution lines 

Underground City of Millbrae water pipelines 

SSBPL 


 

 

 

Underground power lines 

Overhead distribution lines west of the SFPUC ROW in the back yards of the residences on 

Fairway Drive 

SAPL2, SAPL3, and SSBPL 

As described above, the closest natural gas line is approximately 385 feet from the San Bruno 

North site. Therefore, there are no natural gas transmission lines in the immediate vicinity of the 

project sites, and the PPSU project would not affect natural gas transmission lines. 

To accommodate the height of trucks and equipment that would be accessing the trail from 

Lomita Avenue, the overhead telephone lines that extend across the trailhead in the Millbrae site 

would be raised by the installation of temporary telephone poles along the existing telephone line 

alignment. In addition, SFPUC water customer service connections would be replaced at the 

Colma and South San Francisco sites; these replacements would not result in disruptions to water 

supply. Replacement of these connections is required to achieve the PPSU project objective of 

minimizing interruptions of water delivery to customers in Colma and South San Francisco 

during and following a seismic event. Accidental rupture of or damage to these utility lines 

during project construction could temporarily disrupt utility services and, in the case of the 

PG&E electrical cables located at the San Bruno North site, could result in significant safety 

hazards for construction workers. For these reasons, impacts on existing utilities and utility 

services during project construction would be potentially significant. 

Implementation of Mitigation Measures M-UT-1a through M-UT-1f would reduce impacts 

related to the potential disruption of utility operations or accidental damage to existing utilities 

by requiring that SFPUC engineers and/or the construction contractor confirm the location of 

existing utilities and mark the confirmed locations accurately on the final construction drawings; 

work with utility service providers to minimize the risk of damage to existing utility lines, and 

ensure prompt reconnection of service in the event of a service disruption; clearly outline the 

procedures to follow in the event of a leak or explosion; take special precautions when working 

near high-priority utility lines; and immediately notify local fire departments of any damage to 

high-priority utility lines during project construction. Therefore, impacts to the potential 

disruption of utility operations or accidental damage to existing utilities would be less than 


Mitigation Measure M-UT-1a: Confirm Utility Line Information 


The SFPUC or its contractors shall locate overhead and underground utility lines that 

may be encountered during excavation work prior to opening an excavation. Information 

regarding the size, color, and location of existing utilities shall be confirmed before 





excavation activities commence. These utilities shall be highlighted on all construction 

drawings. 

Mitigation Measure M-UT-1b: Safeguard Employees from Potential Accidents Related 

to Underground Utilities 


While any excavation is open, the SFPUC or its contractors shall protect, support, or 

remove underground utilities as necessary to safeguard employees. As part of contractor 

specifications, the contractor(s) shall be required to provide updates on planned 

excavations for the upcoming week, and to specify when construction will occur near a 

high-priority utility. SFPUC construction managers shall attend tailgate meetings with 

contractor staff, as required by the California Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration, to record all protective and avoidance measures regarding such 

excavations. 

Mitigation Measure M-UT-1c: Notify Local Fire Departments 


In the event that construction activities result in damage to high-priority utility lines, 

including leaks or suspected leaks, the SFPUC or its contractors shall immediately notify 

local fire departments to protect worker and public safety. 

Mitigation Measure M-UT-1d: Emergency Response Plan 


Prior to commencing construction activities, the SFPUC shall develop an emergency 

response plan that outlines procedures to follow in the event of a leak or explosion. The 

emergency response plan shall identify the names and phone numbers of PG&E staff 

who would be available 24 hours per day in the event of damage or rupture of the highpressure 

PG&E natural gas pipelines. The plan shall also detail emergency response 

protocols including notification, inspection, and evacuation procedures; any equipment 

and vendors necessary to respond to an emergency, such as an alarm system; and routine 

inspection guidelines. 

Mitigation Measure M-UT-1e: Ensure Prompt Reconnection of Utilities 


The SFPUC or its contractors shall promptly notify utility providers to reconnect any 

disconnected utility lines as soon as it is safe to do so. 

Mitigation Measure M-UT-1f: Coordinate Final Construction Plans with Affected 

Utilities 


The SFPUC or its contractors shall coordinate final construction plans and specifications 

with affected utilities. 






the relocation of regional or local utilities. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) 

The proposed alignments for the SAPL2, SAPL3, and SSBPL would cross beneath or above 

existing utilities at several locations, as mentioned under Impact UT-1. Although the PPSU 

project does not propose to relocate such utilities owned and operated by other utility companies, 

relocation may become necessary once the locations and characteristics of conflicting utilities are 

confirmed. Removal, replacement, or stabilization of the pipelines could require temporary or 

permanent relocation of utility lines that are owned and operated by other utility companies. 

Therefore, because such relocation could cause health hazards to workers associated with 

relocation work, or disruptions to the service area during relocation, impacts related to utility 

relocation are considered potentially significant. 

Adverse effects related to the potential need to relocate regional or local utilities would be 

minimized through implementation of Mitigation Measure M-UT-1a: Confirm Utility Line 

Information, Mitigation Measure M-UT-1b: Safeguard Employees from Potential Accidents 

Related to Underground Utilities, Mitigation Measure M-UT-1c: Notify Local Fire 

Departments, Mitigation Measure M-UT-1d: Emergency Response Plan, Mitigation 

Measure M-UT-1e: Ensure Prompt Reconnection of Utilities, and Mitigation 

Measure M-UT-1f: Coordinate Final Construction Plans with Affected Utilities. These 

measures would require advanced planning and coordination with other utility providers, so 

that the nature and location of other utilities may be identified and provided to construction 

contractors, allowing them to avoid these utilities to the extent feasible and prevent or minimize 

service interruptions to customers. In addition, these measures would ensure that appropriate 

safety measures are implemented, and that emergency responders are notified of the project prior 

to construction. Should relocation become necessary, the mitigation would reduce potential 

human hazard and utility supply impacts associated with accidents and/or interruption of 

utilities. Therefore, impacts related to the relocation of regional or local utilities would be less 

than significant with mitigation. 

Impact UT-3: Project construction would not result in a substantial adverse effect 

related to water supply availability. (Less than Significant) 

As part of pipeline shutdown activities, dewatering of the pipelines would be required to empty 

the section of pipe that would be replaced. As shown in Table 3-3 in Chapter 3, Project 

Description, dewatering of the SAPL2, SAPL3, and SSBPL segments would eliminate 

approximately 5.41 million gallons (MG) of water from the SFPUC water transmission system. 

Subsequently, prior to pipeline startup, hydrostatic testing would be completed to verify the 

structural integrity of the pipeline. An estimated total of 0.6 MG of water would be needed for 

hydrostatic testing. Dewatering activities after pipeline disinfection and during the pipeline 

startup would require 13.5 MG of water. The water would be supplied by the SFPUC system and 

represents a minor, one-time demand. During construction, water would also be required for 

dust control and for other construction activities including preparation of cement. Water for dust 

control and for cement would likely be provided from municipal supplies. These water uses 

would be short term and minor in total demand. Therefore, impacts related to water supply 

availability during construction would be less than significant. 





Impact UT-4: Project construction would not result in a substantial adverse effect 

related to landfill capacity. (Less than Significant) 

Construction debris would include tree debris, soils, pavement, and the old pipelines that would 

be removed and trucked to Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill in Half Moon Bay for recycling or 

disposal. While each site would have a minimal amount of vegetation debris associated with 

preparing the sites for construction, the South San Francisco and Millbrae sites would have an 

estimated 50 cubic yards and 205 cubic yards of tree debris, respectively, associated with the 

removal of the dense groves that are established above the pipelines. An approximate total of 

32,190 cubic yards of construction and demolition debris materials would be off-hauled from the 

five sites. This quantity represents approximately 0.07 percent of the estimated remaining landfill 

capacity at the Ox Mountain Landfill. 

Because adequate landfill capacity exists to accept the project’s construction waste, impacts 

related to exceeding permitted landfill capacity would be less than significant. 


compliance with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations pertaining to solid 

waste. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) 

To reduce the quantity of material to be sent to the landfill, as required by the California 

Integrated Waste Management Act, spoils excavated during construction would be reused as 

backfill, if they are of a suitable quality. Excess soil or soil that is inadequate for backfill (i.e., 

rocky) would be hauled off site for recycling, if possible, or disposal if no reasonable alternative 

for reusing or recycling is possible. At the South San Francisco and Millbrae sites, trees would be 

removed from the SFPUC ROW, the debris would be chipped, and stumps would be ground to a 

specified depth below grade. Construction debris, including shoring materials, old pipe 

materials, and pavement, would be off-hauled as needed during construction and once 

construction is completed. As described above, up to approximately 32,190 cubic yards of 

materials would be off-hauled. 

It is unknown whether this quantity of waste would affect the 50 percent solid waste diversion 

goal set by the California Integrated Waste Management Act. Therefore, impacts related to 

compliance with federal, State, and local regulations related to solid waste would be 

conservatively considered to be potentially significant. 

With implementation of Mitigation Measure M-UT-5: Prepare and Implement a Construction 

Solid Waste Recycling Plan the proposed project would comply with federal, State, and local 

statutes and regulations pertaining to solid waste. Therefore, impacts would be less than 


Mitigation Measure M-UT-5 Prepare and Implement a Construction Solid Waste 

Recycling Plan 


The SFPUC or its contractors shall prepare a construction solid waste recycling plan/ 

waste management plan. The plan should identify the goal of salvaging the maximum 

amount of demolition debris at all projects sites. The plan should also include 





identification of the types of debris generated by the project and of how waste streams 

will be handled; and identification of actions to reuse or recycle construction debris and 

clean excavated soil to the extent possible. The plan shall include actions to divert waste 

with disposal in a landfill in accordance with, at a minimum, the solid waste diversion 

goal set by the California Integrated Waste Management Act, and with local ordinance 

requirements as follows: 

 

 

 

At the Colma site – 50 percent recycling of the waste tonnage from any demolition 

project where the waste includes concrete and asphalt (or 15 percent where there is 

no concrete and/or asphalt); and 50 percent recycling of waste tonnage; 

At the South San Francisco site and Common Staging Area – 100 percent recycling of 

inert solids; and at least 50 percent recycling of the remaining construction and 

demolition debris tonnage; and 

At the Millbrae site – 50 percent recycling of all waste generated for the project by 

weight, with at least 25 percent achieved through reuse and recycling of materials 

other than source separated dirt, concrete and asphalt. 

No local ordinances apply at the San Bruno North and South sites; therefore, diversion 

shall be consistent with State law (at least 50 percent recycling of solid wastes). 


As summarized in Section 5.12.3.2, the project entails replacement of underground portions of an 

existing pipeline and restoration of the sites generally to pre-construction conditions. Therefore, 

there are no operational utilities or service system impacts associated with the project. Project 

operations would not generate wastewater, substantially change existing drainage facilities on 

the sites, require water supply, or generate solid waste, and there would be no impact. 


Impact C-UT: Construction of the proposed project could result in a cumulatively 

considerable contribution to cumulative impacts related to disruption or relocation of 

utilities. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) 

The geographic scope for potential cumulative utilities and service systems impacts consists of 

the project area, its immediate vicinity, and the service areas of regional service/utility providers. 

For landfill capacity, the geographic scope includes the service areas of San Mateo County, where 

disposal of construction-related waste could occur. For compliance with solid waste statutes and 

regulations, the geographic area encompasses San Mateo County. 

Damage to or Disruption of Existing Utilities and Relocation of Utilities 

Several of the cumulative projects listed in Table 5.1-1 could result in damage to existing utilities, 

disruption of utility services, or relocation of utilities. Construction activities for the cumulative 

projects could result in the temporary disruption of existing water, electrical, or natural gas 





services, whether as part of a planned service shutdown or as the result of possible physical 

damage to utility lines during construction. 

There would be an overlap in construction schedules for the PPSU and the Regional 

Groundwater Storage and Recovery (GSR) project at the Colma and South San Francisco sites, 

and an overlap in Harry Tracy Water Treatment Plant (HTWTP) Long-Term Improvements 

project with the tree removal at the Millbrae site. Because the construction schedules for the other 

cumulative projects are unknown, it cannot be determined whether the PPSU project would 

overlap with those construction schedules. Therefore, cumulative impacts related to disruption of 

utility operations or accidental damage to existing utilities and relocation of regional or local 

utilities could be significant if the construction of the PPSU project and other cumulative projects 

overlapped, and damage to or disruption of existing utilities and relocation of utilities were to 

occur. The PPSU project could have a cumulatively considerable contribution to this potentially 

significant impact because there could be multiple instances of disruption and relocation during 

construction. The proposed project would implement Mitigation Measures M-UT-1a: Confirm 

Utility Line Information; M-UT-1b: Safeguard Employees from Potential Accidents Related to 

Underground Utilities; M-UT-1c: Notify Local Fire Departments; M-UT-1d: Emergency 

Response Plan; M-UT-1e: Ensure Prompt Reconnection of Utilities; and M-UT-1f: Coordinate 

Final Construction Plans with Affected Utilities. Implementation of these mitigation measures 

would serve to avoid or limit any impacts on existing utilities by confirming the location prior to 

any excavation work, and through coordination with the appropriate safety and utility providers. 

Therefore, the project’s contribution to cumulative impacts would not be cumulatively 

considerable, and impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. 

Landfill Capacity 

All of the cumulative projects would generate construction-related waste. If all of these wastes were 

disposed of in offsite disposal facilities, there could be a significant cumulative impact on landfill 

capacity. The HTWTP includes an adopted mitigation measure that requires the SFPUC or its 

contractor to develop and implement a Waste Management Plan and a Spoils Diversion Plan 

detailing how the diversion requirements will be met, and identifying two alternate landfills to 

which waste could be diverted; these plans would also ensure that the volume and rate of diverted 

or recycled construction and demolition debris tonnage does not exceed the capacity of onsite 

staging areas and local and nearby diversion and recycling facilities. The PPSU project also includes 

proposed mitigation measures to develop a Waste Management Plan. In addition, each of the 

cumulative projects would be required to implement source reduction, recycling, and composting 

measures—as mandated by AB 939 and implemented by the specific project site and San Mateo 

waste management ordinance—to divert wastes from landfills. For all of these reasons, the 

cumulative impact on landfill capacity would be less than significant with mitigation. 

Compliance with Solid Waste Statutes and Regulations 

The proposed project and other cumulative projects would generate waste that requires offsite 

disposal. However, each of the cumulative projects would be required to implement source 

reduction, recycling, and composting measures—as mandated by AB 939 and implemented by 

the specific project site and San Mateo waste management ordinance—to divert wastes from 

landfills. Therefore, the potential cumulative impact related to compliance with solid waste 

statutes and regulations would be less than significant. 






Cal Water (California Water Service Company), 2011. 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, 

South San Francisco District. Adopted June 2011. Available online at: www.calwater.com/ 

your_district/uwmp/bay/South_San_Francisco/2010_Urban_Water_Management_Plan_(SSF).pdf. 

CalRecycle, 2011. Facility/Site Summary Details: Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill (41-AA-0002). 

Available online at: www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/41-AA-0002/Detail/. Accessed 


City of Millbrae, 1998. General Plan. Adopted November 24, 1998. 

City of Millbrae, 2011a. City of Millbrae Budget, Economic Condition, and Major Initiatives. 

Available online at: www.ci.millbrae.ca.us/index.aspx?page=57. Accessed November 8, 2011. 

City of Millbrae, 2011b. City of Millbrae Recycling & Waste Prevention Program. City Website. 

Available online at: www.ci.millbrae.ca.us/index.aspx?page=232. Accessed November 15, 2011. 

City of Millbrae, 2011c. City of Millbrae Website, Garbage Service. Available online at: www.ci. 

millbrae.ca.us/index.aspx?page=144. Accessed November 10, 2011. 

City of Millbrae, 2012. City of Millbrae Public Works Department General Conditions of 

Approval (Construction and/or Demolition Reuse and Recycling Requirements). May. 


City of San Bruno, n.d.. City of San Bruno Municipal Code, Chapter 10.23, Recycling and 

Diversion of Debris from Construction and Demolition. Available online at: http://qcode.us/ 

codes/sanbruno/view.php?topic=10-10_23&showAll=1&frames=on. 

City of South San Francisco, 1999. General Plan. October 13. 

City of South San Francisco, 2011. City of South San Francisco Utility Service. Available online at: 

www.ssf.net/index.aspx?nid=118. Accessed November 8, 2011. 

City of South San Francisco, n.d.. City of South San Francisco Municipal Code, Chapter 15.60, 

Recycling and Diversion of Debris from Construction and Demolition. Available online at: 

http://qcode.us/codes/southsanfrancisco/view.php?topic=15-15_60-15_60_010&frames=on. 

Chaudhary & Associates, Inc., 2011. Engineering drawings. April. 

Erler & Kalinowski, Inc., 2011. City of San Bruno Urban Water Management Plan. June. 


Final Conceptual Engineering Report. April. 

Meridian Surveying Engineering, Inc., 2011. Strip Topography Drawings. July. 





PG&E (Pacific Gas and Electric), 2012. Gas Transmission Pipeline System Map. Available online 

at: www.pge.com/myhome/edusafety/systemworks/gas/transmissionpipelines. Accessed 

March 1, 2012. 

Recology, 2011. Recology Peninsula Services website. Available online at: www.sanbruno 

garbage.com/index.htm. Accessed November 8, 2011. 

Riddell, Anthony, 2012. Personal communication between Anthony Riddell, Engineering 

Technician, City of Millbrae Public Works Department and Daniel Jaimes, SFPUC 

Communications Liaison. August. 

San Mateo County, 2002. County of San Mateo Ordinance No. 04099. Available online at: 

http://recycleworks.org/con_dem/or_04099.html. Accessed: May 22, 2012. Adopted on 

February 26, 2002. Effective on March 26, 2002. 




Town of Colma, 1999. Town of Colma General Plan. Adopted June 1999. 

Town of Colma, n.d. Construction and Demolition Recycling Criteria. Available online at: 

www.recycleworks.org/pdf/colma.pdf. Accessed March 1, 2012. 






This section describes the existing conditions and regulatory setting for public services in the 

cities in which the project sites are located and analyzes potential impacts on public services that 

could result from the proposed Peninsula Pipelines Seismic Upgrade (PPSU) project. Public 

services addressed in this section include law enforcement services and fire protection services. 

Because the PPSU project does not propose to construct new homes or businesses and, as such, 

would not increase the local population, the project would not affect schools or libraries; 

therefore, these public services are not addressed in this section. Potential impacts on parks and 

recreational facilities are analyzed in Section 5.11, Recreation. 


The proposed project would be constructed at five separate sites, located along the San Francisco 

peninsula in San Mateo County. The five sites are located in the incorporated communities of the 

Town of Colma and the cities of South San Francisco, San Bruno (two sites), and Millbrae; and a 

small area of unincorporated San Mateo County surrounded by South San Francisco. As 

described in Section 5.2, Land Use and Land Use Planning, the setting in the project vicinity is 

urban with mixed land uses including commercial and residential uses, and facilities such as 

schools and churches, cemeteries, golf clubs, and open-space areas. 

5.13.1.1 Law Enforcement Services 

Law enforcement services are provided by the local city police departments within the project 

area as described below. 

 

 

 

The Colma Police Department is located at 1199 El Camino Real and made up of 26 officers. 

Members often participate in county-wide efforts with other San Mateo County enforcement 

agencies (Town of Colma, 2012). The Colma Police Department serves approximately 1,800 

residents. Average response time ranges between 3 to 4 minutes (Silva, 2012). 

The South San Francisco Police Department is located at 33 Arroyo Drive, and the 

department is allotted 79 sworn and 35 civilian positions divided into two divisions: 

operations and services. The Operations Division includes patrol, investigations, and traffic. 

The Services Division includes communications, records, and community relations. The 

South San Francisco Police Department serves a population of over 60,000 residents, and 

nearly 100,000 people who work in the city during the week. (City of South San Francisco, 

2012a). The department is generally able to respond to high-priority calls within 2 to 

3 minutes (City of South San Francisco, 2010b). 

The San Bruno Police Department is located at 1177 Huntington Avenue and consists of 

48 sworn officers and over 70 employees. The department provides a range of law 

enforcement services and responds to over 25,000 calls for service each year (City of San 

Bruno, 2012a). The San Bruno Police Department serves approximately 40,000 people in the 

City of San Bruno (City of San Bruno, 2012a). The estimated response time for emergency 

medical response is 2 to 3 minutes (City of San Bruno, 2008). 





 

In March 2012, the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office began providing law enforcement 

service for the City of Millbrae, serving approximately 21,000 residents. The Sheriff’s Office 

Millbrae Police Bureau is located at the existing Millbrae Police Department at 581 Magnolia 

Avenue, Millbrae (City of Millbrae, 2012a). The average response time is approximately 

4 minutes (Barberini, 2012). 

5.13.1.2 Fire Protection Services 

As defined by the California Public Resources Code (Sections 4125–4127), there are State 

Responsibility Areas, lands for which the State has financial responsibility for fire prevention and 

suppression, and Local Responsibility Areas, areas for which local agencies have the financial 

responsibility for fire prevention and suppression. The five project sites are located in Local 

Responsibility Areas (CALFIRE FRAP, 2012). However, none of the project sites are located in 

areas designated as Very High Fire Severity Zones (CAL FIRE, 2008). 

Fire protection services are listed below from north to south for the project sites. 

 

 

 

 

The Town of Colma Fire Protection District is supported by 36 on-call department members 

reporting from Station 85, located at 50 Reiner Street in Colma, approximately 2.7 miles from 

the Colma site (CFPD, 2012). 

The South San Francisco Fire Department has five stations. The closest station to the South 

San Francisco site is Station 63, located at 33 Arroyo Drive, approximately 0.2 mile from the 

project site. (City of South San Francisco, 2012b). Every day, the department staffs three 

engine companies, two quints (a combination fire engine and fire truck), a battalion chief, and 

two ambulances. The department has a minimum of 20 people on staff at any given time. 

The City of San Bruno Fire Department has 35 full-time fire fighters, 10 trained “paid call 

reserves,” at two stations. Station 51, located at 555 El Camino Real, is approximately 

1.5 miles from the San Bruno North site (City of San Bruno, 2008 and 2012b). Station No. 52, 

located at 1999 Earl Avenue, approximately 1.5 miles from the San Bruno South site, 

responds to emergency calls west of Interstate 280. 

The Millbrae Fire Department has two stations and 27 full-time employees, including 

12 authorized paramedic positions. The closest station to the Millbrae site is located at 

785 Crestview Drive, approximately 1.6 miles from the Millbrae site (City of Millbrae, 2012b). 



There are no federal regulations related to the provision of public services that pertain to the 

proposed project. 

5.13.2.2 State 

Requirements for fire protection services are legally bound to various requirements defined by 

the California Public Resources Code (Sections 700-745). These requirements primarily include 





equipment and construction-area protocols to which contractors must adhere during construction 

activities. Law enforcement and fire protection services are also subject to various requirements 

contained in the California Health and Safety Code. 

5.13.2.3 Local 

San Mateo County General Ordinance 

Within San Mateo County, administrative procedures related to law enforcement and fire 

protection services are outlined in the San Mateo County General Ordinance. 

Town of Colma General Plan 

The Town of Colma General Plan Safety Element includes the following sections: Fire Hazards, 

Urban Fire Hazards, Wildland Fire Hazards, Fire Control Services, and Fire Safety Policies (Town 

of Colma, 1999). No codes specifically apply to the Colma site. 

City of South San Francisco General Plan 

Section 8.4 of the South San Francisco General Plan, Fire Hazards, discusses fire risk factors, 

including both vegetation and infrastructure, throughout the city. The city is classified into low-, 

medium-, and high-management units. The South San Francisco site is in a low-priority area, and 

therefore does not require extra risk management (City of South San Francisco, 2010a). 

City of San Bruno General Plan 

Chapter 8, Public Facilities and Services Element, of the San Bruno General Plan (City of San 

Bruno, 2009), includes the following policy: 

Policy PFS-30 protection measures in high-risk and urban-interface areas, including but not 

limited to: 

 

 

 

 

 

Proper siting, road and building clearances, and access; 

Brush clearance (non-fire-resistant landscaping 50 feet from structures); 

Use of fire-resistive materials (pressure-impregnated, fire-resistive shingles or shakes); 

Landscaping with fire-resistive species; and 

Installation of early warning systems (alarms and sprinklers). 

Both the San Bruno North and San Bruno South sites are within the area identified in the 2008 

general plan as a Wildland/Urban Interface Hazard Area. 

City of Millbrae General Plan 

Section 8.7 of the City of Millbrae General Plan Safety Element, Fire Hazards, identifies risks in 

undeveloped hill areas, lowland areas, and structural hazards (City of Millbrae, 1998). 








impacts related to public services, but generally considers that implementation of the proposed 

project would have a significant impact on public services if it were to: 

 

Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of, or the need 

for, new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause 

significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response 

times, or other performance objectives for any public services such as fire protection, police 

protection, schools, parks, or other services. 


Due to the nature of the proposed project, there would be no project construction or operational 

impacts related to the significance criterion. Therefore, an impact discussion is not provided for 

this topic for the reasons described below: 

 

Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of, or the 

need for, new or physically altered governmental facilities. Section 3.8.8, Project Workforce 

and Construction Vehicle Parking, describes the limited size of workforce requirements for 

the proposed PPSU project, which would be implemented over a period of approximately 

12 months, from October 2014 to September 2015. During that time, work crews of up to 

20 personnel each would be engaged in construction activities, with one crew per site. A 

maximum of four sites would be under construction simultaneously, as shown on Figure 3-12 

in Chapter 3, Project Description, requiring a total of up to 80 personnel. As described in 

Section 5.4, Population and Housing, given the size and nature of the San Francisco Bay Area 

labor force and the anticipated availability of skilled construction workers in the area, it is 

expected that the existing regional labor force would readily meet the project’s construction 

workforce requirements. Therefore, no population increase would be anticipated to result 

from construction workers outside the region moving to the region to fill these jobs. 

Potential incidents requiring law enforcement, fire protection, or emergency services could occur 

during construction; however, any temporary increase in incidents would not exceed the capacity 

of local law enforcement, fire protection, and emergency facilities such that new or expanded 

facilities would be required, because any temporary increase in the local population during 

project construction would be negligible and could be accommodated by existing service 

providers. Therefore, construction of the proposed project would not result in impacts related to 

the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities in order to maintain existing levels 

of public services, and no construction-related public service impacts would occur. 

Additionally, operation of the proposed project would not result in an increase in the local 

population. Operation and post-construction maintenance activities would be similar to existing 

maintenance activities and would not result in increases in the demand for public services, 





including fire protection, police protection, libraries, schools, hospitals, or other services. 

Therefore, operational impacts related to public services are not applicable. 

Because there would be no construction or operational impacts, the criterion related to the need 

for new or modified governmental facilities is not applicable to the project and is not discussed 

further. 



to public services, no mitigation measures related to this resource topic are necessary, and there 

would be no impact. 


Implementation of the proposed project would not result in any cumulative impacts related to 

public services because the project would not result in any project-specific impacts related to this 

topic, and there would be no impact. 


Barberini, Lieutenant Ed, 2012. Personal communication between Alissa Stillman, URS and 

Lieutenant Ed Barberini, Chief of Police Services, San Mateo County Sheriff's Office Millbrae 

Police Bureau. July 5. 

CAL FIRE (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection), 2008. San Mateo County Very 

High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA. Available online at: www.fire.ca.gov/fire_prevention/ 

fhsz_maps/fhsz_maps_sanmateo.php. Accessed on June 5, 2012. 

CAL FIRE FRAP (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Fire and Resource 

Assessment Program), 2012. State Responsibility Areas for Fire Protection San Mateo County. 

Available online at: http://frap.cdf.ca.gov/webdata/maps/san_mateo/sramap.41.pdf. Accessed on 

June 26, 2012. 

CFPD (Colma Fire Protection District), 2012. Available online at: http://www.colmafd.org. 

Accessed on June 5, 2012. 

City of Millbrae, 1998. General Plan Safety Element. Section 8.7 Fire Hazards. November. 

City of Millbrae, 2012a. Millbrae Police Bureau, Sheriff’s Office. Available online at: http://www. 

ci.millbrae.ca.us/index.aspx?page=68. Accessed on June 5, 2012. 

City of Millbrae, 2012b. Fire Department Facts. Available online at: http://www.ci.millbrae.ca.us/ 

index.aspx?page=62. Accessed on June 5, 2012. 

City of San Bruno, 2008. San Bruno 2025: General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report. 

December. 





City of San Bruno, 2009. General Plan Chapter 7 Public Facilities and Services Element. 

December. 

City of San Bruno, 2012a. Police Department. Available online at: http://sanbruno.ca.gov/ 

police_main.html. Accessed on June 5, 2012. 

City of San Bruno, 2012b. Fire Department Home Page. Available online at: http://www.san 

bruno.ca.gov/fire_contacts.html. Accessed on June 5, 2012. 

City of South San Francisco, 2010a. General Plan Health and Safety Element. Section 8.4 Fire 

Hazards. February. 

City of South San Francisco, 2010b. General Plan Health and Safety Element. Section 8.5 Law 

Enforcement. February. 

City of South San Francisco, 2012a. Police Home Page. Available online at: http://www.ssf.net/ 

index.aspx?NID=248. Accessed on June 5, 2012. 

City of South San Francisco, 2012b. Fire Home Page. Available online at: http://casouthsanfrancisco.civicplus.com/index.aspx?NID=416. 

Accessed on June 5, 2012. 

Silva, Karen, 2012. Personal communication between Alissa Stillman, URS and Karen Silva, 

Colma Police Department, Dispatch/Records Division. July 5. 

Town of Colma, 1999. General Plan Safety Element. Section 5.07.320 Fire Hazards. June. 

Town of Colma, 2012. Colma Police Department Home Page. Available online at: 

http://www.colma.ca.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id= 

49&Itemid=61. Accessed on June 5, 2012. 





This section describes the biological resources present in the vicinity of the proposed Peninsula 

Pipelines Seismic Upgrade (PPSU) project and evaluates the project’s impacts on sensitive 

biological resources, including wetlands and aquatic species, fisheries, sensitive habitats, specialstatus 

plant and animal species, and protected trees. Mitigation measures to avoid or reduce 

adverse impacts are identified, as appropriate. 


Biological studies for PPSU were designed to identify habitats and vegetation communities in the 

project study area, 1 determine the presence or absence of wetlands or other waters subject to the 

jurisdiction of State or federal agencies, and determine if special-status plant or wildlife species or 

sensitive vegetation communities are likely to be present within the study area. 

5.14.1.1 Definitions 

For the purposes of this analysis, the biological survey study area includes the five sites and the 

common staging area, as well as areas accessible immediately adjacent to the sites (generally 

within 25 feet of the site boundaries). 

Special-status biological resources include special-status plants, animals, and natural 

communities, plus wetlands and other waters of the U.S. and state as defined by the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers (Corps), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and the State 

Water Resources Control Board. 

Special-status natural community is a natural habitat community that receives regulatory 

recognition from municipal, county, state, and/or federal entities such as the CDFW because it is 

unique in its constituent components, restricted in distribution, supported by distinctive soil 

conditions, and/or considered locally rare. 

Special-status plant and animal species are defined as: 

 

 

Species listed under the Federal Endangered Species Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act, 

California Endangered Species Act (CESA), CDFW Code, and the Native Plant Protection Act 

as endangered or threatened species, or that are candidates or proposed for listing; or species 

that are designated as rare or fully protected. 

Locally rare species defined by California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines 

Sections, which may include species that are designated as sensitive, declining, rare, locally 

endemic, or as having limited or restricted distribution by various federal, state, and local 

agencies, organizations, and watch lists. This includes species on lists 1B and 2 of the 

California Native Plant Society (CNPS, 2010). 

1 For the purposes of the biological analysis, the study area includes the five sites and the common staging area, as well 

as areas accessible immediately adjacent to the sites (generally within 25 feet of the site boundaries). 





5.14.1.2 Information Sources and Survey Methodology 

This section describes the methodology used to characterize the existing biological conditions for 

the study area. In addition to the methods described below, pertinent information for the 

common staging area located on the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission’s (SFPUC) Baden 

Valve Lot is incorporated by reference from the approved Baden and San Pedro Valve Lots 

Improvement Project Mitigated Negative Declaration (SF Planning, 2008), which was completed 

for improvements previously proposed by the SFPUC for the Baden Lot. Because the 

environmental conditions on the Baden Valve Lot remain substantially as described in the 2008 

mitigated negative declaration, and because no new information is available that would change 

the findings of the mitigated negative declaration, the findings and the studies referenced therein 

are applicable to the common staging area for the PPSU project. 

Vegetation Communities 

Information about vegetation communities within the study area was obtained from the 

following resources, where appropriate: 

 

List of California Terrestrial Natural Communities Recognized by the California Natural 

Diversity Database (CDFG, 2003); 

Hierarchical List of Natural Communities with Holland Types (CDFG, 2010); 

California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB, 2011); 

 

 

 

California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR, 2011), a comprehensive information 

system for terrestrial vertebrates and their habitats in California; Preliminary Descriptions of 

the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California (Holland, 1986); 

California Vegetation (Holland and Keil, 1995); and 

A Manual of California Vegetation (Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf, 1995) and A Manual of 

California Vegetation, second edition (Sawyer et al., 2009). 

Vegetation communities are described based on the resources listed above and on 

reconnaissance-level surveys that were conducted within the study area between December 2010 

and September 2011 by a qualified botanist and a qualified wildlife biologist. Classification of 

vegetation communities is based on the CDFW’s CWHR. Vegetation community descriptions 

were then refined based on plant species detected during the reconnaissance surveys, as well as 

protocol-level surveys for special-status plants, described below. An evaluation of the potential 

occurrence of sensitive vegetation communities was also conducted, based on the List of 

California Terrestrial Natural Communities Recognized by the California Natural Diversity 

Database (CDFG, 2003) and the Hierarchical List of Natural Communities with Holland Types 

(CDFG, 2010). 

Sensitive vegetation communities include those described in the List of California Terrestrial 

Natural Communities Recognized by the California Natural Diversity Database (CDFG, 2003) as 

communities that are either known or believed to be of high priority for inventory in the 

CNDDB. CDFWs earlier attempt at cataloging vegetation communities recognized certain special 





vegetation communities as having the “highest inventory priorities” (Holland, 1986). More 

recently, the CNDDB developed an updated, online classification system for vegetation 

communities under its Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program (VegCAMP). The 

VegCAMP program is intended to develop and maintain California’s expression of the National 

Vegetation Classification System. VegCAMP is a synthesis of the Natural Communities Program 

within the CNDDB and the Significant Natural Areas Program. This enables a more focused 

effort on developing and maintaining maps and the classification of all vegetation and habitats in 

the state, to support conservation and management decisions at the local, regional, and state 

levels (CDFG, 2011d). 

The VegCAMP website provides three versions of the most recent Natural Communities List, 

including the Hierarchical List of Natural Communities with Holland Types (CDFG, 2010), which 

ranks vegetation alliances according to their degree of imperilment as measured by rarity, trends, 

and threats. Ranking follows NatureServe’s Heritage Methodology, in which all alliances are 

listed with a G (global) and S (state) rank. Natural vegetation communities with a state rank of 

S1-S3 are considered to be of special concern. For alliances given state ranks of S1-S3, all 

associations within them are also considered to be highly imperiled. 

Special-Status Plant Species 

Special-status plants include those that are listed or proposed to be listed as endangered, 

threatened, or rare by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (USFWS, 1996a), or are listed 

by the CDFG (CDFG, 2011a and 2011b), the CNDDB (CNDDB, 2011), or the CNPS (CNPS, 2001 

and 2010). The CNPS Inventory listing is recognized by the CDFW, and CNPS List 1B and 2 

species are considered especially eligible for State listing as endangered or threatened under the 

CDFW Code. CNPS List 3 and List 4 species are either plants about which more information is 

needed, or plants uncommon enough that their status should be closely monitored. As a general 

policy, both CDFW and CNPS advocate the consideration of all CNPS-listed species in the CEQA 

review process. 

A list of special-status plant species occurring within the vicinity of the study area was compiled 

from databases available from the CNPS (CNPS, 2010) and the CNDDB (CNDDB, 2011) for the 

Montara Mountain and San Francisco South U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute 

quadrangles and the immediately adjacent quadrangles, which include Half Moon Bay, Hunter’s 

Point, Oakland West, Point Bonita, San Francisco North, San Mateo, and Woodside (Appendix F, 

Table 1.1). 

Reconnaissance-level surveys were conducted on December 6, 2010 and February 2, 2011 by a 

botanist, to assess the potential for available habitats to support special-status plant species, and 

to determine whether sensitive vegetation communities are present. Subsequently, protocol-level 

botanical surveys were conducted on March 21, April 18, and May 31, 2011, at the San Bruno 

South and Millbrae study areas as documented in the Rare Plant Survey Report (BioMaAS, Inc. 

and URS, 2012). 2 The timing of the seasonal surveys was generally based on the flowering period 

of special-status plants that could occur on habitats available on site, when the plants would be 

2 Technical reports prepared for the project are on file and available for public review at the Planning Department, 

1650 Mission Street, Suite 400, as part of Case No. 2011.0123E. 





most readily identifiable. Several late-flowering special-status annual plant species were 

considered for their potential to occur on site but were rejected based on an absence of suitable 

habitat, such as coastal salt marsh, stabilized sand dunes, or serpentine-derived soils. Several 

perennial plants considered to have a low potential to occur on onsite habitats would not have 

been flowering during the survey dates, but would have been identifiable at least to their genus, 

based on vegetative characteristics. Additional habitat reconnaissance and botanical surveys 

were conducted on August 4, 2011, at the Colma, South San Francisco, and San Bruno North sites, 

and an additional site visit was made on September 6, 2011, to the South San Francisco site for the 

assessment of wetlands potentially falling under the jurisdiction of CDFW. Based on the timing 

of the August reconnaissance and the highly disturbed nature of the added sites, further 

protocol-level botanical surveys for these areas were considered to be unwarranted. 

Protocol-level botanical surveys were conducted within the project study areas at the San Bruno 

South and Millbrae sites, and in immediately adjacent areas (generally within 25 feet) where 

suitable habitat for special-status plant species was present and accessible. Surveys were 

conducted according to protocols set forth by the CDFW in their Guidelines for Assessing the 

Effects of Proposed Developments on Rare and Endangered Plants and Plant Communities 

(CDFG, 2009), and according to the USFWS Guidelines for Conducting and Reporting Botanical 

Inventories for Federally Listed, Proposed and Candidate Plants (USFWS, 1996a). Botanical 

surveys were floristic in nature, meaning that during the surveys, all vascular plants 3 

encountered were identified in the field where possible, and recorded. Plants not readily 

identifiable in the field were collected and identified subsequently in the lab. References used to 

aid in plant identification included The Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California (Hickman, 

1993), Illustrated Flora of the Pacific States (Abrams, 1923-1960), and Flora of the Santa Cruz 

Mountains of California (Thomas, 1961). Nomenclature for plants used throughout this report 

conforms to Hickman (Hickman, 1993). An inventory of all vascular plants detected within the 

study area is presented in Appendix F, Table 1.2. Only species considered to have the potential to 

occur or having suitable habitat present are discussed in the existing conditions section below. 

Wetlands and Other Waters 

The potential for the presence of wetlands or other aquatic features falling under the jurisdiction 

of federal or State agencies was assessed in the field during reconnaissance and botanical 

surveys. The initial assessment was based on the presence or absence of field characteristics of 

wetland hydrology and/or hydrophytic vegetation. Where warranted, subsurface soils were also 

examined in the field for characteristics of hydric soils. 

A more detailed discussion of the roles of these agencies is presented in Regulatory Framework, 

below. 

Wildlife Habitats and Wildlife Movement Corridors 

The potential for the presence of wildlife habitats and migratory wildlife corridors in the study 

area was evaluated based on the reconnaissance-level surveys, a review of existing literature, and 

3 Vascular plants include pteridophytes (ferns and ferns and fern-like plants), angiosperms (flowering plants), and 

gymnosperms, including conifers, but do not include plants such as mosses, liverworts, lichens, or algae. 





A Checklist for Evaluation of Impacts to Wildlife Movement Corridors (Beier and Loe, 1992). A 

wildlife movement corridor is a linear habitat connecting two or more substantive areas of 

habitats, and is generally used to maintain connectivity among formerly contiguous wildlands as 

they existed prior to urbanization. Based on the work of Beier and Loe, the criteria for identifying 

a potential corridor as a functioning wildlife corridor include areas where: 1) wide-ranging 

animals can travel, migrate, and find mates; 2) plants can propagate; 3) genetic interchange can 

occur; 4) populations can move in response to environmental changes and natural disasters; and 

5) individuals can re-colonize habitats from which populations have been locally extirpated 

(Beier and Loe, 1992). 

Habitat and other site features were photographed and described for the project sites. The CWHR 

was consulted for wildlife classification. This classification scheme is based on the 59 wildlife 

habitats described in A Guide to Wildlife Habitats of California (Mayer and Laudenslayer, 1988), 

which serves as a model to predict which wildlife species may inhabit specific plant 

communities. Habitat features with the potential to attract migratory wildlife species were also 

noted. Wildlife species observed were documented during reconnaissance-level surveys, and are 

listed in Appendix F, Table 2.2. 

Special-Status Wildlife Species 

Special-status animal species include those listed as or candidates for listing as Endangered, 

Threatened, or Rare by the USFWS and/or the CDFW. Additional animal species receive special 

protection under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The Fish and Game Code of California 

provides protection for “fully protected birds,” “fully protected mammals,” “fully protected 

reptiles and amphibians,” and “fully protected fish.” A botanist reviewed existing literature and 

the CNDDB, and completed reconnaissance-level surveys to determine the potential for specialstatus 

wildlife species to occur in the study area. Based on the types of vegetation present and the 

type of habitat provided by that vegetation, each special-status wildlife species considered in this 

report was evaluated for its potential to occur in the vicinity of the study area. Species with the 

potential to occur in the study area are briefly discussed in the following sections, and are listed 

in Appendix F, Table 2.1. 

The CDFW’s California Bird Species of Special Concern list is composed of three priority 

categories derived through a scoring and ranking process, and two unranked categories derived 

by definition. Because the distribution and abundance of many taxa (a taxonomic category or 

group) in California vary seasonally, the “season of concern” corresponds to the season, or 

seasons, for which a specific taxon is ranked for conservation priority (Shuford and Gardali, 

2008). Some of the birds listed are of special concern year round, while others are of concern only 

during the breeding season. 

Appendix F, Table 2.1 provides a list of the 38 special-status wildlife species with the potential to 

occur within the study area. The appendix lists the common and scientific names of each species, 

its legal status, the habitat type in which it occurs, and its potential to occur on the project site 

based on habitat suitability. If the possibility of occurrence of some species was eliminated, the 

table includes a brief discussion of how this assessment was derived. Only species considered to 

have the potential to occur or having suitable habitat present are discussed below. 





5.14.1.3 Survey Results and Existing Conditions 

Existing conditions for vegetation communities, including sensitive natural communities, specialstatus 

plant species, wetlands and other waters, wildlife habitats and migratory wildlife 

corridors, and special-status wildlife species, are described below. 


The following subsection describes the vegetation communities and urban areas observed in the 

study area. Vegetation communities present include annual grassland, Central Coast riparian 

scrub, coast live oak woodland, eucalyptus grove, and ruderal vegetation. Urban landscapes, 

including ornamental plantings, are also described. A single sensitive vegetation community, 

Central Coast riparian scrub as originally described by Holland (Holland, 1986), was identified 

within the study area at the South San Francisco site. It is discussed in more detail below. 

Figures 5.14-1 through 5.14-5 show the vegetation communities identified at each site, and 

Table 5.14-1 below identifies the acreage of each vegetation community at each site where it 

occurs. 

Table 5.14-1 


Vegetation Community 

Study Area 

Annual 

Grassland 

Central 

Coast 

Riparian 

Scrub 

Coast 

Live Oak 

Woodland 

Eucalyptus 

Grove 

Ruderal 

Vegetation 

Urban 

Landscape 

Colma – – – – 1.99 – 



– 0.17 – – 0.36 0.48 

San Bruno North – – – – – 0.85 

San Bruno South – – – – 2.04 0.15 

Millbrae 1 1.36 – 2.83 1.23 0.34 2.45 


Area 2 

– – – – 0.32 – 

Total Acres 1.36 0.17 2.83 1.23 5.05 3.93 

Source: PPSU project analysis, BioMaAS and URS. 

Notes: 

– = Not present 

1 Millbrae study area includes the access routes requiring upgrades. 

2 Information for the common staging area interpreted from Baden and San Pedro Valve Lots Improvement Project 

Mitigated Negative Declaration Case No. 2006.1314E (SF Planning, 2008). 







Center 

Hedc 

Kohl's 



Culvert 


#* 


vsa/ed U:\GIS\SFPUC_Peninsula_Pipeline\Projects\EIR\SC_DEIR\Fig5_14_1_vegetation_Colma.mxd 1/9/2013 10:34:25 AM 

Hedc 



Cemetery 





Water Features 

Waters of the U.S. 

and State 

#* 

Waters of the State 

(RWQCB) 




Vegetation 

Ruderal vegetation 

0 100 200 

Feet 

$ 

COLLINS AVE 


VEGETATION COMMUNITIES AND WATER FEATURES 

COLMA SITE 




FIGURE 5.14-1





SITE 

ARROYO DR 


ARROYO DR 

WEST ORANGE 

ARROYO DR 

AVE 


OVERVIEW 


#* 

CAMARITAS AVE 


Culvert 



California 

Golf Club of 


Hedc 

Pacific 

Supermarket 

vsa/ed U:\GIS\SFPUC_Peninsula_Pipeline\Projects\EIR\ERO_DEIR\Fig5_14_2_vegetation_SSF.mxd 2/19/2013 4:21:01 PM 

Hedc 




Boring Pit 


Waters of the U.S. 

#* 

and State 

Potential Waters of 

the State (CDFW) 




Line 



Vegetation 

Central Coast riparian scrub 


Urban landscape 

0 100 200 

Feet 

$ 

KNOLL CIR 


FAIRWAY DR 



0 100 200 

Feet 






FIGURE 5.14-2




CEDARWOOD CT 

CEDAR AVE 

§¨¦ 280 

vsa/ed U:\GIS\SFPUC_Peninsula_Pipeline\Projects\EIR\ERO_DEIR\Fig5_14_3_vegetation_SanBrunoNorth.mxd 2/18/2013 10:10:23 AM 

CRESTMOOR 


DR 




Access Portal 


Vegetation 

Note: No water features were observed on site. 


$ 

0 100 200 

Feet 


PEPPER DR 






FIGURE 5.14-3

REDWOOD AVE 


HAWTHORNE AVE 

Shelter Creek 

Condominiums 

Shelter Creek 

Condominiums 

#* 

§¨¦ 280 

JENEVEIN AVE 

WHITMAN WAY 


GLENBROOK LN 

ROSEWOOD DR 

KEEFE CT 

COURTLAND DR 

Church 

Parking Lot 

vsa/ed U:\GIS\SFPUC_Peninsula_Pipeline\Projects\EIR\SC_DEIR\Fig5_14_4_vegetation_SanBrunoSouth.mxd 1/8/2013 5:41:54 PM 








#* Waters of the State (RWQCB) 




Vegetation 


Parking Lot 

$ 

0 100 200 

Feet 







CRYSTAL SPRINGS RD 






FIGURE 5.14-4


County Park 

LOMITA AVE 

TERRACE DR 

ROBIN LN 

BROOKSIDE LN 

FAIRVIEW 



PL 

BAYVIEW AVE 


BARCELONA DR 

GUADALUPE AVE 


RIDGEWOOD DR 

Glen Oaks/ 

Millbrae 


ELMWOOD DR 

OAKWOOD DR 

#* 

BERTOCCHI LN 

CAPUCHINO 

DR 

HACIENDA WAY 

FERNWOOD DR 

GLENWOOD DR 

vsa/ed U:\GIS\SFPUC_Peninsula_Pipeline\Projects\EIR\SC_DEIR\Fig5_14_5_vegetation_Millbrae.mxd 1/7/2013 1:58:00 PM 

MOSSWOOD LN 


Meadows 

Elementary 

School 


HELEN DR 



Access Route Requiring Upgrade 


Line 



Sources: NAIP Imagery Summer 2010; SFPUC 2011 

Hedc 

BANBURY LN 

Meadows 

Park 

LARKSPUR DR 


Waters of the U.S. and State 

#* 

$ 

Hedc 

Waters of the State (RWQCB) 

Vegetation 

Annual grassland 

Coast live oak woodland 

Eucalyptus grove 

Ruderal vegetation 0 100 200 


Feet 

#* 

Green 

Hills 

Country Club 


MILLBRAE SITE 




FIGURE 5.14-5



Representative plant species observed in each community during the surveys conducted between 

December 2010 and September 2011 are included in the descriptions below. 

Annual Grassland 

Annual grassland communities are composed primarily of annual plant species, and are largely 

influenced by a combination of weather patterns, edaphic (or soil-related) conditions, and 

environmental conditions such as topographic position—and, to a lesser degree, land use 

practices and other anthropogenic disturbance. Introduced annual grasses are the dominant plant 

species in this habitat. Native plant species may sparsely persist in annual grasslands, but 

nonnative plant species typically prevent them from reestablishing (Kie, 2005). 

Annual grassland was observed at the San Bruno South and Millbrae sites. However, the patches 

of annual grassland at the San Bruno South site intergrade with ruderal vegetation, and were too 

small and scattered to be mapped. At the Millbrae site, annual grassland forms small stands 

along the margins or in openings of coast live oak woodland near the northern end of the trail, as 

shown on Figure 5.14-5. Annual grassland is also established on the staging and spoils area, north 

of the SFPUC right-of-way (ROW), and along the access route at the eastern end of Larkspur 

Drive. Approximately 1.36 acres of annual grassland are located in the study area. 

Plant species observed in the annual grasslands of the study area include nonnative species such 

as wild oats (Avena fatua), Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), 

wild radish (Raphanus sativus), bur clover (Medicago polymorpha), cranesbill (Geranium dissectum), 

rose clover (Trifolium hirtum), and narrow-leaved flax (Linum bienne), as well as occasional natives 

including blue-eyed grass (Sisyrinchium bellum), dove lupine (Lupinus bicolor), and Spanish clover 

(Lotus purshianus), among others. 

Central Coast Riparian Scrub 

Of the vegetation communities found in the study area, the Central Coast riparian scrub is the 

only community considered to be a sensitive natural community. Based on the Hierarchical List 

of Natural Communities with Holland Types (CDFG, 2010), which ranks vegetation alliances 

according to their degree of imperilment as measured by rarity, trends, and threats, Central Coast 

riparian scrub is ranked S3, which indicates it is considered to be of special concern, and may be 

highly imperiled. 

Central Coast riparian scrub typically consists of scrubby streamside, open to impenetrable 

thickets composed of several species of willows (Salix spp.). This plant community often occurs 

close to river channels and near the coast on fine-grained sand and gravel bars with a high water 

table. It is distributed along and at the mouths of most perennial and many intermittent streams 

of the South Coast ranges, from the Bay Area to near Point Conception (Holland, 1986). Central 

Coast riparian scrub is generally regarded as early seral, meaning that it typically precedes the 

development of other riparian woodland or forest communities in the absence of severe flooding. 

However, outside of riparian environments, such as on slopes near the coast subject to moist 

marine influence and summer fog, or near groundwater seeps, willow-dominated scrub 

represents a relatively stable plant community. 

Central Coast riparian scrub in association with an offsite riparian system is located at the South 

San Francisco site, and is not established at any of the other sites within the study area. Isolated, 





nonriparian willows are not considered to be sensitive natural communities. The individual or 

isolated stands of arroyo willow observed at the San Bruno North, San Bruno South, and Millbrae 

sites are supported by artificial irrigation and are not considered to be riparian because of their 

isolation from natural streams or other waterways. 

At the South San Francisco site, Central Coast riparian scrub occurs in a single dense, mature 

stand of willows immediately northwest of Westborough Boulevard, as shown on Figure 5.14-2, 

and occupies approximately 0.17 acre. Characteristic plant species occurring at this site include a 

dominant overstory of mature arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis), with native California blackberry 

(Rubus ursinus) in the understory. The Central Coast riparian scrub conforms to the arroyo 

willow series, as described in Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf (Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf, 1995), and 

would represent the Arroyo willow thickets Alliance, following CDFW (CDFG, 2010). Very 

sparse poison hemlock (Conium maculatum), and patches of English ivy (Hectera helix) and 

Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor), all nonnative species, are also present. The willow thicket 

is nearly impenetrable in most of the site, and the canopy is continuous outside of the study area 

to the west. The canopy extends offsite to a small natural drainage that connects to a concrete 

culvert and flows underground toward Westborough Boulevard. 

Coast Live Oak Woodland 

In California, oak woodlands of several types occur at elevations ranging from about 30 to 

5,000 feet, where summers are warm and dry and winters are mild and wet. Coast live oak 

woodland is typically found on north-facing slopes and shaded ravines in the southern and 

inland portions of the state, and on more exposed, mesic (or moderately moist) sites in the north. 

This community is dominated by coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), which frequently occurs in 

pure, dense stands with a closed canopy. Coast live oak woodland is restricted primarily to the 

coast side of the state, and is distributed from Sonoma County to Baja California. It occurs 

throughout the outer South Coast ranges and coastal slopes of the Transverse and Peninsular 

ranges, usually below 4,000 feet in elevation (Holland, 1986). 

Coast live oak woodland is only present at the Millbrae study area. Based on the field survey of 

the project study area and on aerial photographs, the primary vegetation community in the 

approximately 16.3-acre City of Millbrae open space area in the vicinity of the Millbrae site is 

considered to consist principally of oak woodlands, which are protected under the Oak 

Woodlands Conservation Act (where the canopy comprises greater than 10 percent coast live 

oak). 

In total, there are approximately 2.83 acres of coast live oak woodland in the study area; they are 

located along the trail from Lomita Avenue, and within a portion of the SFPUC ROW as it 

extends across the Green Hills Country Club. A mature stand of coast live oak woodland, 

dominated by coast live oak, is present along most of the trail through the City of Millbrae open 

space area, north of the golf course at the Green Hills Country Club, as shown on Figure 5.14-5. 

The oak woodland portion of the study area through which the trail (temporary access route) 

would extend is approximately 2.47 acres. Typical native plants associated with oak woodland at 

the Millbrae site include toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), snowberry (Symphorocarpus albus var. 

laevigatus), Pacific sanicle (Sanicula crassicaulis), poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum), and 

California blackberry, among others. In portions of coast live oak woodland along the trail, 

English ivy (Hedera helix) forms a nearly continuous understory. Further south, along the SFPUC 





ROW, a stand of coast live oak woodland intergrades or intersperses at its western margin, 

immediately west of a golf course fairway, with a well-developed eucalyptus grove. The oak 

woodland occupies approximately 0.36 acre within the construction zone. In this portion of the 

ROW, the oak woodland canopy is composed of greater than 10 percent of coast live oak. 

Nonnative or naturalized tree species in the oak woodland include blue gum (Eucalyptus 

globulus), Monterey pine (Pinus radiata), and Monterey cypress (Cupressus macrocarpus). 

Eucalyptus Grove 

There are more than 150 species of eucalyptus, and none of them are native to the United States. 

Eucalyptus trees were extensively planted throughout California in the mid-nineteenth century 

(Pearson, 1988) and continue to be popular introductions in both rural and urban landscapes as 

hedgerows and shade trees. They were also planted in dense groves to provide wind breaks or 

for hardwood production and harvesting due to their rapid growth. Eucalyptus species are 

highly successful seeders, producing abundant natural regeneration. Eucalyptus habitat for 

wildlife can consist of single trees or large stands of one or a few different eucalyptus species. 

Understory vegetation in eucalyptus groves are rare due to their ability to rapidly shed leaf litter, 

stringy bark, branches, and seeds, which block the ability of other plants to propagate. In 

addition, eucalyptuses produce allelopathic chemicals that inhibit the growth of other species. 

Eucalyptus trees commonly establish along creeks and streams, growing rapidly, crowding out 

native riparian vegetation, and competing for water and soil nutrients (Pearson, 1988). 

Eucalyptus grove was only observed at the Millbrae study area and comprises approximately 

1.23 acres in the study area. As shown on Figure 5.14-5, eucalyptus grove was observed along 

portions of the trail, within the staging area north of the SFPUC ROW, and within the SFPUC ROW 

as it extends across the golf course. The dense stand of mature trees approaches 60 to 80 feet in 

height and has a nearly closed canopy. The understory supports an abundance of young blue gum 

saplings, with a very sparse herbaceous understory consisting of only a few scattered individuals of 

California honeysuckle (Lonicera hispidula var. vacillans) and wood strawberry (Fragaria vesca). 

Ruderal Vegetation 

Ruderal plant communities are assemblages of plants that thrive in disused or abandoned lots, 

roadsides, and similar disturbed sites in urban areas and along rural roadways. Heavily 

compacted soils found on roadsides, parking lots, and footpaths typically support ruderal 

communities (Holland and Keil, 1995). 

Ruderal vegetation was observed at the Colma, South San Francisco, San Bruno South, and 

Millbrae sites, and was not observed at the San Bruno North site. The common staging area also 

supports ruderal vegetation (SF Planning, 2008). 

As shown on Figure 5.14-1, ruderal vegetation occurs throughout the Colma site, and covers 

approximately 1.99 acres. Ruderal vegetation is also present in the northwestern portion of the 

South San Francisco site (approximately 0.36 acre) and in the common staging area 

(approximately 0.36 acre), as shown on Figure 5.14-2. The majority of the San Bruno South site is 

ruderal vegetation (approximately 2.04 acres), as show on Figure 5.14-4, and it intergrades with a 

few small patches of annual grassland. At the Millbrae site, ruderal vegetation is primarily 

located within the SFPUC ROW, behind residences on Ridgewood Drive (approximately 





0.34 acre), as shown on Figure 5.14-5. Although not mapped, it intergrades with annual grassland 

at the north end of trail as well. 

Typical plants of ruderal vegetation within the study area include Bermuda buttercup (Oxalis pescaprae), 

creeping wood-sorrel, English plantain (Plantago lanceolata), bristly ox-tongue (Picris 

echioides), wild teasel (Dipsacus fullonum), sweet fennel (Foeniculum vulgare), Italian thistle 

(Carduus pycnocephalus), and Himalayan blackberry, among many others. Several dense stands of 

perennial grasses are also present, including Harding grass (Phalaris aquatica), meadow fescue 

(Festuca pratensis), and pampas grass (Cortaderia jubata). Scattered individuals of the native coyote 

brush (Baccharis pilularis) are also occasional within ruderal vegetation. 

Urban Landscapes 

The CWHR describes urban landscapes as urban areas with vegetation classified into five 

definitions: tree grove, street strip, shade tree/lawn, lawn, and shrub cover. Residential 

landscapes, parks, golf courses, and school grounds are included in this classification. In urban 

areas, productivity of plant biomass, consisting of the living or dead vegetative material 

generated by plant growth, is often greater than in natural grasslands because of irrigation and 

fertilization (McBride and Reid, 1988). The variable planting design and local climate produce 

complex mosaics, offering wildlife a good source of additional food such as fruits and berries. 

Urban landscaped areas can frequently overlap with ruderal vegetation and other vegetation 

types along their margins. 

Urban landscape was observed at all the project sites, with the exception of the Colma site. 

Although urban areas are not mapped for the Colma site, occasional, scattered ornamental trees 

and shrubs are present along its margins. 

The southeastern portion of the South San Francisco site supports an urban landscape of 

approximately 0.48 acre, which gently slopes upward from Westborough Boulevard to West 

Orange Avenue, as shown on Figure 5.14-2. Vegetation is largely composed of a planted and 

maintained lawn area dominated by red fescue (Festuca rubra), but also includes winter vetch 

(Vicia villosa), common vetch (Vicia sativa), white clover (Trifolium repens), bull thistle (Cirsium 

vulgare), cut-leaved plantain (Plantago coronopus), and rough cat’s-ear (Hypochaeris radicata), 

among others. The lawn area is bordered on both margins by various planted ornamental shrubs 

associated with individuals or small patches of arroyo willow, which appear to be naturalized in 

areas regularly irrigated for the benefit of the cultivated landscape. Monterey cypress is also 

present. The irrigation system evident at this site suggests that the willows are supported by 

artificial means, and are therefore not considered to be natural wetland vegetation. 

The San Bruno North site consists primarily of planted ornamental species and conforms to the 

urban areas classification, as shown on Figure 5.14-3. Approximately 0.85 acre of urban landscape 

is located at this site. Disturbance of the site also includes past activities associated with the 

installation and maintenance of the existing pipelines. Ornamental plantings on site include 

Lombardy poplar (Populus nigra), rose (Rosa sp.), capeweed (Arctotheca calendula), French broom 

(Genista monspessulana), Monterey pine, and Monterey cypress. Naturalized nonnative plants 

noted include herbaceous species such as prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), Hottentot fig 

(Carpobrotus edulis), wild radish, English ivy, bird’s-foot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus), sweet fennel, 

bristly ox-tongue, and wild oats, among others. Shrubs including Himalayan blackberry and 





cotoneaster are also present. In addition, several native plants are present at the San Bruno North 

site, including a mature coast live oak and a few small coast live oak seedlings. This tree may 

represent relict native vegetation, but is isolated by the surrounding urban landscape. Native 

toyon and coyote brush are also present, and may have become established naturally or may 

have been planted. Hooker’s evening primrose (Oenothera elata ssp. hookeri), which is also present, 

commonly establishes itself on roadsides on the San Francisco Peninsula, especially where there 

is irrigation. Several coast redwoods (Sequoia sempervirens) on the site were probably planted. A 

small cluster of arroyo willow is also present, and as described for the South San Francisco site 

above, appears to be supported by artificial irrigation. 

At the San Bruno South site, urban landscape is located between Whitman Way and Shelter 

Creek Lane, as shown on Figure 5.14-4. Approximately 0.15 acre is located at this site, consisting 

of Monterey pines and other common ornamental trees and shrubs. 

Approximately 2.45 acres of urban landscape are located at the Millbrae site along the residences 

in the SFPUC ROW and portions of the golf course, as shown on Figure 5.14-5. At this site, the 

urban landscape primarily consists of turf grass and scattered lawn weeds such as English daisy 

(Bellis perennis), creeping wood-sorrel, common dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), and white 

clover, among others. 

Special-Status Plant Species 

A total of 160 species of plants were observed within the study area (Appendix F, Table 1.2). Of 

these, 49 are native. The remaining 111 species are nonnative plants. None of the plant species 

observed during focused botanical surveys are considered to be special-status species. 

Additionally, based on available habitats and conditions at each of the sites, no special-status 

plant species are expected to be found. Plant species observed within the study area are described 

above under Vegetation Communities. 

No suitable habitat for special-status plant species is known to be present at the common staging 

area on the SFPUC’s Baden Valve Lot (SF Planning, 2008). 

Wetlands and Other Waters 

Within the study area, various constructed water conveyance features exhibiting evidence of 

periodic surface flow, as well as several individuals or small stands of arroyo willow, were 

assessed for their potential to be subject to State or federal jurisdiction. As described below, three 

are considered to fall under the jurisdiction of the Corps. These features are also protected by the 

Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), subject to regulation under the Porter-Cologne 

Water Quality Control Act and the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Region 

(Basin Plan). Four additional features, which would not fall under the jurisdiction of the Corps, 

would be under the jurisdiction of the RWQCB as waters of the State of California, subject to the 

Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. 

The three water conveyance features under U.S. jurisdiction are located at the Colma, South San 

Francisco, and Millbrae sites (one feature at each site). At the Colma site, a portion of an 

underground culvert, which is a tributary to Colma Creek, extends across the site (Figure 5.14-1). At 

the South San Francisco site, an underground culvert associated with Twelve Mile Creek, also a 





tributary of Colma Creek, extends through the site (Figure 5.14-2). At the Millbrae site, the concrete 

v-ditch at the eastern end of Larkspur Drive adjacent to the Green Hills Country Club flows 

approximately 600 feet downslope to the southeast, where it empties into Green Hills Creek. These 

features convey waters of natural creek systems that have been re-routed in underground culverts 

or manmade ditches. As described above, they would also be considered waters of the state. 

Four other water conveyance features fall under the jurisdiction of the RWQCB as waters of the 

State. These features are concrete-lined v-ditches designed for slope stability or to carry runoff 

away from the vicinities of the sites during precipitation events. There is one feature at the Colma 

site, one at the San Bruno South site, and two at the Millbrae site (Figures 5.14-1, 5.14-4, 

and 5.14-5). These are man-made ditches excavated in uplands, and are therefore not expected to 

fall under the jurisdiction of the Corps. Waters from the ditches eventually flow through 

underground culverts and storm drain systems into San Francisco Bay. For this reason, they 

would fall under the jurisdiction of the RWQCB as waters of the State. 

Arroyo willow stands are the only conspicuous and widespread hydrophytic vegetation found in 

the study area. Arroyo willow is listed as a facultative wetland species in the National List of 

Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands (Reed, 1988), and as such is a plant species usually 

occurring in wetlands. However, it is occasionally found in nonwetland areas. Arroyo willow 

stands supported by artificial irrigation, or otherwise isolated from riparian features such as 

natural drainages, are not considered to be wetland vegetation according to the methodology 

used for this study. Isolated stands of willow are located on several sites in the study area; 

however, as described under Central Coast Riparian Scrub above, they are not considered to fall 

under the jurisdiction of the U.S. or the State. 

At the South San Francisco site, a small stand of arroyo willow is characterized as Central Coast 

riparian scrub based on its association with a natural tributary drainage immediately to the west 

of the site (Figure 5.14-2). The willow thicket is nearly impenetrable in most of the site, and the 

canopy is continuous outside of the study area to the west, where a small natural drainage, 

approximately 80 feet from the project site, provides a riparian context to the willow stand before 

it enters a concrete culvert and flows underground toward Westborough Boulevard. 

Due to an absence of both hydric soils and wetland hydrology, this feature would not fall under 

Corps jurisdiction; however, CDFW may assert jurisdiction over the stand due to the contiguous 

tree canopy connection with the willows along the natural drainage to the west of the project site 

(the drainage has a distinct bed, bank, and channel). 

There is no riparian habitat or jurisdictional wetlands within the vicinity of the common staging 

area near South San Francisco (SF Planning, 2008). 

Wildlife Habitats and Migratory Wildlife Corridors 

Urban landscapes and ruderal vegetative communities are dominated by generalist scavenger 

wildlife species such as raccoon (Procyon lotor), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), opossum 

(Didelphis virginiana), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), common raven (Corvus corax), 

western scrub-jay (Aphelocoma californica), and various rodents. Generalist species prey upon a 

variety of wildlife, decreasing the likelihood that special-status wildlife species would be found 

in urban areas. As with urban areas, special-status wildlife species are not likely to use ruderal 

vegetation for foraging, breeding, or shelter (Fahrig, 2002, Goodrich and Buskirk, 1995). Wildlife 





species observed in the study area during surveys completed on December 2, 2011, and April 18, 

2011, are listed in Appendix F, Table 2.2. 

Oak woodland provides valuable habitat for a variety of bird and mammals species. The oak 

woodlands within the study area provide nesting habitat for special-status birds, including 

white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus) and numerous other raptors and migratory bird species. In oak 

woodlands, mature trees and dead trees with hollows provide daytime roosting site for specialstatus 

bats such as western red bat (Lasiurus blossevillii) and pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus). A 

single nest of San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes annectens) was observed 

about 50 feet west of the pedestrian path in the study area. 

Eucalyptus trees provide roost, nest, and perch sites for birds of prey such as red-tailed hawks, 

great-horned owls, barn owls, and kestrels. Songbirds also use eucalyptus in the same capacity 

but to a lesser degree. The leaf litter and bark shed by eucalyptus provide micro habitats for small 

vertebrate species such as alligator lizard, gopher snake, and woodrat (Pearson, 1988). Specialstatus 

birds that could nest in the eucalyptus include the white-tailed kite. The eucalyptus grove 

also provides nesting and foraging habitat for other raptors and numerous migratory birds. The 

monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus) often uses eucalyptus groves for winter roosting (Shapiro 

and Manolis, 2007). No monarch butterflies were observed roosting in the eucalyptus trees 

during the December 2, 2010, surveys (as described below under Monarch Butterfly), and no 

known winter roosting sites are recorded for the any of the sites. 

The Mission blue butterfly (Plebejus icarioides missionensis) could occur in the annual grassland at 

the Millbrae site due to the presence of a few larval host plants for this species. It is unlikely that 

any other special-status wildlife species would occur in association with annual grasslands in the 

study area, because the project site is surrounded by urban development, has experienced 

fragmentation of habitat (Fahrig, 2002), and there is a lack of suitable habitat features used for 

foraging, cover, and breeding by sensitive wildlife species (Fischer and Lindenmayer, 2007). The 

presence of generalist species also reduces the likelihood that special-status wildlife species 

would be present due to the competition for resources (Goodrich and Buskirk, 1995). 

The sites are not considered to provide migratory wildlife corridors under the Beier-Loe 

classification scheme because they are entirely surrounded by urban development that does not 

allow animals that range widely to safely travel through the area. California red-legged frog (Rana 

draytonii) could disperse through the drainage adjacent to the South San Francisco site while water 

is present during the winter months; however, there is no connectivity to documented breeding 

habitat. Therefore, the site cannot be classified as a migratory wildlife corridor under the Beier-Loe 

classification scheme. If this species did disperse through the drainage it would be a rare event. 

Wildlife dependent upon migratory corridors cannot recolonize the study areas due to lack of 

suitable habitat and competition with wildlife species habituated to urbanized environments. In 

addition, the study area does not provide substantive areas of habitat. 

Special-Status Wildlife Species 

Thirty-eight special-status animal species were considered to have a potential to occur in certain 

types of habitats in the study area. Based upon the habitat preferences and CNDDB records for 

each listed species and the reconnaissance-level surveys (December 2, 2010, April 18, 2011, 

August 4, 2011, and September 6, 2011), each wildlife species was evaluated for its potential to 

occur in the vicinity of the study area. Of these species, seven are considered to have at least some 





potential to occur at the sites due to the presence of suitable habitat and CNDDB occurrences 

within the study area region, including Mission blue butterfly, monarch butterfly, white-tailed 

kite (nesting), western red bat, pallid bat, and San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat, as described 

below and shown in Table 5.14-2. The study area does not provide suitable breeding habitat for 

the seventh species, the California red-legged frog; however, suitable dispersal habitat is present 

on the South San Francisco site, due to proximity to a natural drainage west of the site. California 

red-legged frog could shelter in rodent burrows in the upland areas adjacent to the drainage. 

Monarch butterfly has no federal or state special-status listing, but has been included because it is 

generally recognized as a sensitive species and could be listed for protection in the future. 

Table 5.14-2 

Special-Status Wildlife Species Potentially Occurring at the Sites 

Wildlife Species 

Plebejus icarioides missionensis 

Mission blue butterfly 

Danaus plexippus 

monarch butterfly 

Rana draytonii 

California red-legged frog 

Elanus leucurus 

white-tailed kite 

Lasiurus blossevillii 

western red bat 

Antrozous pallidus 

pallid bat 

Neotoma fuscipes annectens 

San Francisco dusky-footed 

woodrat 

Status 

Federal/ 

State 

Potential 

Occurrence 

(Project Site) 

Potential Wildlife Use 

FE/– Millbrae Low – Potential breeding habitat 

in grasslands. 

–/S3 Millbrae Low – Potential wintering 

habitat in eucalyptus grove. 

FT/SC 



Low – Potential dispersal habitat 

is present. 

–/FP Millbrae Moderate – Potential nesting 

habitat present. 

–/SC Millbrae Low – Potential breeding habitat 

present. 

–/SC Millbrae Low – Potential breeding habitat 

present. 

–/SC 



and Millbrae 

Present – Nest midden observed. 


Notes: 

– = No status 

Federal: 

FE = Listed as endangered under the Federal Endangered Species Act 

FT = Listed as threatened under the Federal Endangered Species Act 

State: 

SE = Listed as endangered under the California Endangered Species Act 

ST = Listed as threatened under the California Endangered Species Act 

SC = Species of special concern under the California Endangered Species Act 

S3 = State Rank 21-100 Element Occurrences (3,000 to 10,000 individuals for range of 10,000-50,000 acres) 

FP = Fully Protected under the California Endangered Species Act 

Potential Level: 

Low = Suitable habitat present; not likely to occur due to environmental constraints, but cannot be ruled as absent 

Moderate = Potential to occur based on habitat suitability 

Present = Species or evidence thereof observed on site 





No sensitive natural communities are present at the common staging area on the SFPUC’s Baden 

Valve Lot, and no suitable habitat for special-status animal species is known to be present (SF 

Planning, 2008). 

Mission Blue Butterfly 

The Mission blue butterfly is a federally listed endangered species with no State special status. 

No critical habitat has been designated for this species. This species is included in the USFWS’s 

Recovery Plan for San Bruno Elfin and Mission Blue Butterflies (USFWS, 1984). The range of the 

Mission blue butterfly was once widespread on the hills of San Francisco and San Mateo County 

(USFWS, 1976) where contiguous native grasslands existed. Current populations are known to 

occur from southern Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo counties (USFWS, 2010). Habitat for 

this species is found where larval host plants are present in coastal prairie grasslands, between 

elevations of 690 and 1,180 feet. 

Mission blue butterflies rely on three species of lupine for reproductive purposes (larval host 

plant): silver lupine (Lupinus albifrons), many colored lupine (Lupinus varicolor) and summer 

lupine (Lupinus formosus). Adult butterflies emerge from the dormant caterpillar phase between 

early March and early July while the lupines are blooming. Males fly near and often perch on the 

preferred lupines, attempting to initiate contact with receptive females. Females lay several 

dozen eggs at a time throughout the breeding season on the lupines. The eggs hatch in about 4 to 

10 days (USFWS, 2010). Larvae hatch from the eggs after 4 to 7 days and begin to feed on the soft 

tissue inside leaf foliage for about 3 weeks. They then become caterpillars and shelter under the 

leaf litter below the host plant, where they go into a dormant state until emerging the following 

spring as reproductive adult butterflies (Arnold, 1983). They have a brief lifespan of 7 to 8 days 

(USFWS, 2010). 

During botanical surveys of the study area, three individuals of summer lupine, possibly 

withered from herbicide application, were found in one location near the top of the trail at the 

Millbrae site. Due to the management practices used to prevent vegetation from growing and 

becoming a fire hazard, it is unlikely that Mission blue butterfly would occur at the site; however, 

their presence cannot be ruled out entirely. The Mission blue butterfly occurrence nearest to the 

Millbrae study area (CNDDB record 11) is for butterflies observed in 1985 in the hills adjacent to 

the San Andreas Dam approximately 1.6 miles to the south. 

Monarch Butterfly 

Monarch butterflies have no federal protection under the Federal Endangered Species Act 

(FESA), or State protection under the CESA; however, they are classified by the State as S3. This 

means that it is a species that is experiencing some threat to its overall survival (CNDDB, 2011). 

Eucalyptus groves along the California coastline have been identified as potential winter roosting 

habitat for migratory monarch butterflies between late October to late February (Shapiro and 

Manolis, 2007). The Millbrae site has a large, dense grove of eucalyptus that could provide winter 

roosting for monarchs. No monarchs were observed during the December 2, 2010, survey. The 

nearest winter roosting sites are several miles to the west along the coast near Half Moon Bay and 

Montara Mountain (CNDDB, 2011). The presence of wintering monarch butterflies cannot be 

ruled out entirely because they could roost in the eucalyptus grove in subsequent years. 





California Red-Legged Frog 

The California red-legged frog is a federally listed threatened species and a State species of 

special concern (SSC). This frog is the subject of the USFWS Recovery Plan for the California Red- 

Legged Frog (USFWS, 2002). This frog historically occurred in coastal habitats from the vicinity of 

Point Reyes National Seashore, inland to the vicinity of Redding; and southward to northwestern 

Baja California, Mexico. The species has been extirpated from 70 percent of its historic range; its 

current distribution has been reduced to isolated localities in the Sierra Nevada, northern Coast 

Range, and northern Transverse Range (USFWS, 1996b). 

The California red-legged frog inhabits a variety of aquatic, upland, and riparian environments, 

including ephemeral (intermittent) and permanent ponds, seasonal wetlands, perennial creeks, 

intermittent streams, man-made aquatic features (e.g., stock ponds), riparian corridors, 

blackberry thickets, nonnative annual grasslands, and oak savannahs (USFWS, 1996b). The 

preferred habitat consists of deep-water pools with dense stands of overhanging willows, and an 

intermixed fringe of cattails. Well vegetated upland habitats in proximity of a riparian corridor 

may provide sheltering habitat during the winter (USFWS, 2005). Breeding occurs during winter 

and early spring (late November through April). Adults have a highly variable diet, including 

invertebrates, Pacific tree frogs, and occasionally mice. During the dry summer months these 

frogs estivate (overwinter) in small mammal burrows and moist leaf litter. California red-legged 

frogs have been recorded to cover distances from ¼ mile to more than 2 miles without apparent 

regard to topography, vegetation type, or riparian corridors (USFWS, 2005). 

The known California red-legged frog population nearest to the northern PPSU sites is the 

Milagra Ridge (near Pacifica), approximately 2.2 miles southwest of the South San Francisco 

study area. The known populations of California red-legged frog nearest to the southern PPSU 

sites are at Crystal Springs Reservoir, which is approximately 1 mile west of the Millbrae study 

area (the closest PPSU site to this population). Critical habitat has been designated by the USFWS 

for the habitat from west of Interstate 280 (I-280) to the San Andreas Reservoir shoreline. Critical 

habitat does not extend to the east side of I-280 where the five sites are situated. California redlegged 

frog would not be likely to cross the heavily trafficked I-280 corridor to disperse to the 

PPSU study area, which is devoid of suitable breeding habitat. 

Although there is no suitable breeding habitat for the California red-legged frog within the PPSU 

study area, it is possible that suitable breeding habitat occurs in the vicinity, consisting of a 

reservoir on a golf course approximately 3,900 feet southwest of the South San Francisco site, 

across Westborough Boulevard. The lack of vegetation in and around the reservoir renders it as 

poor quality breeding habitat for California red-legged frog; however, the presence of this species 

cannot be ruled out entirely. The South San Francisco site is adjacent to an underground storm 

drain system that was once a natural creek, known as Twelve Mile Creek—which was, over time, 

buried or drained and water was rerouted into lengthy networks of culverts to conduct flows 

through urban areas (BioMaAS and URS, 2013). 4 A short remnant segment of creek lies in close 

proximity to the South San Francisco site (see Wetlands and Other Waters, above). The drainage 

contained no water during the wetland delineation conducted in September 2011. It is not likely 

4 Technical reports prepared for the project are on file and available for public review at the Planning Department, 

1650 Mission Street, Suite 400, as part of Case No. 2011.0123E. 





that California red-legged frog would breed here, due to the lack of suitable breeding pools. 

However, if there is a population present in the golf course ponds, it could aestivate 5 in small 

mammal burrows and disperse into the drainage during winter months. The desktop review of 

CNDDB data did not reveal any California red-legged frog records in these ponds. This could 

either indicate a lack of surveys in this area, or that frogs are not known to be present at this site. 

The CNDDB record of California red-legged frog closest to the South San Francisco site 

(occurrence 865) is for egg masses observed in 2006, approximately 2.2 miles southeast, in a pond 

on Milagra Ridge east of Pacifica. Another population of California red-legged frog is known to 

occur approximately 2.4 miles southwest (CNDDB record 1114) in a drainage that parallels the 

southbound lane of U.S. Highway 101 in Millbrae, just northwest of the airport. 

White-Tailed Kite 

The white-tailed kite is a State fully protected species, and is also protected under the federal 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act. This raptor hunts in open grasslands, agricultural fields, and 

wetlands, foraging for rodents. In California, the white-tailed kite ranges from the coastline west 

to the Sierras, and is patchily distributed from Eureka to the southern border. They are mostly 

year-round residents but move in response to prey abundance. 

White-tailed kites take cover and build nests in trees and tall shrubs with dense canopies. Their 

nests are situated near open foraging areas, and are constructed of loosely piled sticks and twigs 

in the fork near the top of a tree or bush. They breed between February and October, laying three 

to five eggs, which are incubated for about 1 month. The young fledge in 5 to 6 weeks (Polite, 

2005). 

There are no CNDDB records for white-tailed kite nests within 12 miles of the study area; 

however, the eucalyptus grove and oak woodlands at the Millbrae site provide suitable nesting 

habitat for this species, as well as other raptors and migratory birds. 

Western Red Bat 

The western red bat is a State SSC. It has a broad distribution throughout most of North America, 

but in California is found mostly in coastal areas from San Francisco Bay south, the Central 

Valley and surrounding foothills, and in limited numbers in Southern California (Pierson and 

Rainey, 1998a). Western red bats roost in the foliage of trees and shrubs, typically in edge habitats 

near streams and open fields where they forage for insects. They prefer trees with rigid, shortstemmed 

branches for protection from wind. Trees with open canopies and few low bare 

branches provide cover from perching predatory birds (Pierson and Rainey, 1998a). Maternity 

roosts are found in the same habitat as night roosts. Western bats mate in the late summer or 

early fall, with the female becoming pregnant in spring then giving birth to between one and five 

offspring in 80 to 90 days. The young begin to fly at 3 to 6 weeks of age (Pierson and Rainey, 

1998a). 

There are no CNDDB records for western red bat maternity roost sites in or near the study area; 

however, the Millbrae site provides suitable roosting habitat for the western red bat. 

5 Defined as existing in a dormant state. 





Pallid Bat 

The pallid bat is an SSC. It occurs throughout most of California in lower elevations in a wide 

variety of habitats, including grasslands, shrublands, woodlands, and forests. Day roost and 

hibernation roost sites include caves, rock or bridge crevices, buildings, and hollow trees. At 

night they roost usually in the open near foliage or in open buildings. Pallid bats leave their day 

roost an hour after sunset, capturing their prey on foliage or on the ground. They hibernate in the 

winter near the summer day roost. Maternity colonies form in early April and may have between 

a dozen to 100 individuals (Harris, 2005). The young are born from April to July. 

This species appears to be unable to habituate to urban and suburban environments. Even in 

areas with fragmented or remnant oak woodlands, where this species may have historically 

occurred, it is no longer found (Pierson and Rainey, 1998b). There are no CNDDB records for 

pallid bat maternity roost sites in or near the study area. However, due to the presence of oak 

woodlands at the Millbrae site, which may contain hollow trees that provide suitable roosting 

habitat for the pallid bat, the bat’s presence on the site cannot be ruled out entirely. Therefore, for 

the purposes of this analysis, the Millbrae site is considered to have potential breeding habitat for 

the pallid bat. 

San Francisco Dusky-Footed Woodrat 

The San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes annectens) is an SSC. The approximate 

range of this subspecies extends from San Francisco Bay south to Elkhorn Slough, and directly 

east of the Santa Cruz Mountain range (Hall, 1981). These nocturnal animals inhabit wooded 

environments that provide moderate canopy with an evergreen understory where they can feed 

on native vegetation, including live oak, coffeeberry, alder, and elderberry (Brylski, 2005). They 

pile sticks to build stick houses approximately 3 feet in diameter, with houses often clustered 

together. Nests are constructed inside the houses, and breeding occurs from December to 

September, with mid-spring being the peak of the season. 

A San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat nest was observed in the oak woodland at the Millbrae 

site. Potential breeding habitat is also present in the vegetation in a natural drainage west of the 

South San Francisco site. 


The section below describes applicable regulations pertaining to biological resources within the 

project area. For a list of specific permits required for implementation of the proposed project, 

refer to Section 3.10, Required Permits. 


Federal Endangered Species Act 

FESA protects fish and wildlife species that have been identified by USFWS or the National 

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) as threatened or endangered and their habitats. Endangered 

refers to species, subspecies, or distinct population segments that are in danger of extinction 





through all or a significant portion of their range; threatened refers to species, subspecies, or 

distinct population segments that are likely to become endangered in the near future. 

FESA is administered by USFWS and NMFS. In general, NMFS is responsible for protection of 

FESA-listed marine species and anadromous fishes, while listed, proposed, and candidate 

wildlife and plant species and freshwater fish species are under USFWS jurisdiction. Under 

FESA, it is illegal to take federally listed species. “Take” is defined as “to harass, harm, pursue, 

hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect, or attempt to engage in such conduct.” Take of 

listed species can be authorized through either the Section 7 consultation process for actions by 

federal agencies, or the Section 10 permit process for actions by nonfederal agencies. Federal 

agency actions include activities that are: 

 

 

 

 

On federal land; 

Conducted by a federal agency; 

Funded by a federal agency; or 

Authorized by a federal agency (including issuance of federal permits and licenses). 

Under Section 7, the federal agency conducting, funding, or permitting an action (the federal lead 

agency) must consult USFWS or NMFS, as appropriate, to ensure that the proposed action would 

not jeopardize endangered or threatened species, or destroy or adversely modify designated 

critical habitat. If a proposed project “may affect” a listed species or designated critical habitat, 

the lead agency is required to prepare a biological assessment evaluating the nature and severity 

of the expected effect. In response, USFWS or NMFS issues a biological opinion (BO), with a 

determination that the proposed action either: 

 

 

May jeopardize the continued existence of one or more listed species (jeopardy finding), or 

result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat (adverse modification 

finding); or 

Will not jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species (no jeopardy finding), or 

result in adverse modification of critical habitat (no adverse modification finding). 

The BO issued by USFWS or NMFS may stipulate discretionary “reasonable and prudent” 

conservation measures. If the project would not jeopardize a listed species, USFWS or NMFS 

issues an incidental take statement to authorize the proposed activity. 

In cases where a nonfederal entity is undertaking an action that does not require federal 

authorization, the take of listed species must be permitted by USFWS or NMFS through the 

Section 10 process. If the proposed project would result in the incidental take of a listed species, 

the project proponent must first obtain a Section 10(a)(1)(B) incidental take permit. Incidental 

take under Section 10 is defined as take of federally listed fish and wildlife species “that is 

incidental to, but not the purposes of, otherwise lawful activities.” To receive an incidental take 

permit, the nonfederal entity is required to prepare a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). The HCP 

must include conservation measures that avoid, minimize, and mitigate the project’s impact on 

listed species and their habitat. 

The FESA requires the federal government to designate “critical habitat” for any species it lists. 

Critical habitats are specific geographical areas occupied by the species for which the habitat has 





been designated, and areas that contain physical or biological features essential to conservation. 

Those features may require special management considerations or protections. No critical habitat 

was identified for plants or wildlife in the study area. 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (16 U.S. Government Code [USC] 703) enacts the 

provisions of treaties between the United States and Great Britain, Mexico, and Japan, and 

authorizes the U.S. Secretary of the Interior to protect and regulate the taking of migratory birds. 

It establishes seasons and bag limits for hunted species, and protects migratory birds, their 

occupied nests, and their eggs (16 USC 703; 50 CDFW Code 10, 21). Most actions that result in 

taking or in permanent or temporary possession of a protected species constitute violations of the 

MBTA. Examples of permitted actions that do not violate the MBTA are the possession of a 

hunting license to pursue specific game birds, legitimate research activities, display in zoological 

gardens, bird-banding, and other similar activities. USFWS is responsible for overseeing 

compliance with the MBTA, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal Damage Control 

Office makes recommendations on related animal protection issues. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

The Corps has the authority to regulate activities in waters of the U.S. under §404 of the federal 

Clean Water Act (CWA). Waters of the U.S. include, among others, waters used in interstate or 

foreign commerce, waters subject to the ebb and flow of tide, wetlands, lakes, rivers, streams, 

mudflats, sandflats, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, and natural ponds. The 

outer extent of “waters” is generally defined by the limits of “ordinary high water.” Evidence of 

ordinary high water includes clear and natural lines or impressions on opposite stream banks, 

scouring, sediment deposits, drift lines, exposed roots, shelving, destruction of terrestrial 

vegetation, and the presence of litter or debris. 

Wetlands are defined by the Corps as “those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or 

ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal 

circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil 

conditions” (§404 CWA). Indicators of three wetland parameters (hydrophytic vegetation, hydric 

soils, and wetland hydrology) must be present for a site to be classified as a wetland 

(Environmental Laboratory, 1987). 

5.14.2.2 State 

California Endangered Species Act 

CESA (CDFW Code Sections 2050 to 2097) is administered by CDFW, and prohibits the take of 

plant and animal species designated by the Fish and Game Commission as either threatened or 

endangered in the State of California. “Take” in the context of CESA means to hunt, pursue, kill, 

or capture a listed species, as well as any other actions that may result in adverse impacts when 

attempting to take individuals of a listed species. 

Sections 2091 and 2081 of CESA allowed CDFW to authorize exceptions to the State’s prohibition 

against take of a listed species. Section 2091 allows State lead agencies that have formally 





consulted with CDFW to take a listed species, if the take is incidental to carrying out an otherwise 

lawful project that has been approved under CEQA. Section 2081 allows CDFW to authorize take 

of a listed species for educational, scientific, or management purposes. Private developers whose 

projects do not involve a State lead agency under CEQA may not take a listed species without 

formally consulting with CDFW and agreeing to strict measures and standards for managing the 

listed species. 

Section 2080.1 allows CDFW to authorize take of listed species without issuing an incidental take 

permit (under Section 2081) if it concurs that a federal BO (issued by USFWS or NMFS) addresses 

affected State-listed species fully and provides for full compliance with CESA requirements. In 

this case, CDFW issues a Consistency Determination with the BO relative to State-listed species. 

California Fish and Game Code 

Species of Special Concern 

An SSC is a species, subspecies, or distinct population of an animal native to California that falls 

into one or more of the following categories: 

 

 

 

 

The animal is extirpated from the state or, in the case of birds, in its primary seasonal or 

breeding role; 

The animal meets the State definition of threatened or endangered but has not been formally 

listed; 

The animal is or has experienced serious population or range declines which, if decreases 

continue, could qualify the animal for State threatened or endangered status; or 

The animal has naturally small populations and is highly susceptible to risk of any factor(s) 

that could lead to declines that would qualify it for State threatened or endangered status. 

Impacts to SSC animals from a proposed project should be considered during the CEQA review 

process. Sections 15063 and 15065 of the CEQA Guidelines address how an impact is identified as 

relevant to SSCs (CDFG, 2011c). 

Fully Protected Species 

The CDFW Code provides protection from take for a variety of species, referred to as fully 

protected species. Section 5050 lists fully protected amphibians and reptiles. Section 3515 

prohibits take of fully protected fish species. Fully protected birds are included under 

Section 3511, and fully protected mammals are listed under Section 4700. Except for take related 

to scientific research, all take of fully protected species is prohibited. 

Fully protected species that have potential to occur in the Millbrae project areas include the 

white-tailed kite. 

Bird and Raptor Protections in the California Fish and Game Code 

Section 3503 of the CDFW Code prohibits take, possession, or destruction of eggs and nests of all 

birds. Section 3503.5 prohibits the killing of raptor species and the destruction of raptor nests. 

Take or possession of any migratory nongame bird as designated in the MBTA is prohibited 

under Sections 3513 and 3800. 





Wetlands and Riparian Resources Protection in the California Fish and Game Code 

The CDFW exercises jurisdiction over wetland and riparian resources associated with rivers, streams, 

and lakes under CDFW Codes §1600 through §1607. The CDFW has the authority to regulate work 

that will: 1) divert, obstruct, or change the natural flow of a river, stream, or lake; 2) change the bed, 

channel, or bank of a river, stream, or lake; or 3) use material from a streambed. CDFW’s jurisdictional 

area along a river, stream, or lake is generally bounded by the top of bank or the outermost edges of 

riparian vegetation. Typical activities regulated by CDFW under the CDFW Code include installation 

of outfalls, bank stabilization, creek restoration, implementation of flood control projects, construction 

of river or stream crossings, water diversion, dam construction, gravel mining, logging operations, 

and jack-and-bore tunneling underneath rivers or streams. 

Oak Woodlands Conservation Act of 2001 

The State recognizes oak woodlands, in general, as habitats with high ecological value, and 

encourages their conservation (CRA, 2001). The Oak Woodlands Conservation Act requires a 

county to determine, through the CEQA process, whether a project in its jurisdiction may result 

in loss or conversion of an oak woodland to another habitat, which would have a significant 

effect on the environment (CEQA public resources code §21083.4). Oaks are defined as a native 

tree species in the genus Quercus that is 5 inches or more in diameter at breast height. Oak 

woodlands means an oak stand that has greater than 10 percent oak canopy cover, or that may 

have historically supported greater than 10 percent canopy cover (CRA, 2001). If a county 

determines that a project would result in a significant effect to oak woodlands, the county shall 

require one or more of the following mitigation alternatives: 

1. Conserve oak woodlands by setting aside a conservation easement; 

2. Plant an appropriate number of trees, including maintaining plantings and replacing 

dead or diseased trees, per the following: 

a) The requirement to maintain trees terminates 7 years after the replacement trees were 

planted; 

b) Mitigation tree replacement shall not fulfill more than one-half of the mitigation 

requirements for the project; and 

c) Mitigation tree replacement may be fulfilled by enhancement plantings to restore 

former oak woodland; 

3. Funds may be contributed to the Oak Woodlands Conservation Fund as established 

under Section 1363(a) of the Fish and Game Code; and 

4. Other mitigation measures developed by the county. 

Regional Water Quality Control Board 

The RWQCB, under the auspices of the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (RWQCB, 

2011) defines “waters of the State” as any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, 

within the boundaries of the State of California. All waters of the U.S. that are within the borders 

of California are also waters of the state. However, not all waters of the state are waters of the 

U.S. and therefore, waters of the U.S. represent a subset of waters of the state. The State of 





California, through the RWQCBs, retains authority to regulate discharges of waste to any waters 

of the state, regardless of whether the Corps has concurrent jurisdiction under CWA Section 404. 

The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act defines “water quality control” as the regulation 

of any activity that may affect the quality of the waters of the State, and includes the prevention 

and correction of water pollution and nuisance. In their entirety, RWQCB statutes under the 

Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act include regulation of stormwater runoff associated 

with construction projects and other activities that could discharge soil, pollutants, or other 

materials into waters of the State. The RWQCB also issues water quality certifications under the 

CWA Section 401, as described in greater detail in Section 5.16, Hydrology and Water Quality. 

The RWQCB’s Basin Plan (RWQCB, 2010) is applicable to the project area. The Basin Plan designates 

beneficial uses for specific surface water and groundwater resources, establishes water quality 

objectives to protect those uses, and sets forth policies to guide the implementation of programs to 

attain the objectives. While the Basin Plan does not specify beneficial uses for Colma Creek, San Bruno 

Creek, or Green Hills Creek, existing beneficial uses for San Francisco Bay (to which these creeks 

ultimately discharge) include industrial service supply, commercial fishing, shellfish harvesting, 

estuarine habitat, fish migration, navigation, rare and endangered species preservation, wildlife 

habitat, and limited water contact recreation. Fish spawning is identified as a potential beneficial use. 

5.14.2.3 Local 

This section focuses on local tree protection ordinances for the cities in which the project is 

located, because they are the only local ordinances pertinent to the protection of biological 

resources that were identified in the study area. 

San Mateo County Tree Ordinances 

San Mateo County provides for the protection of trees in the Significant Tree Ordinance 

(Section 12,000; Part Three of Division VIII of the San Mateo County Ordinance Code) (San Mateo 

County, 1990) and the Regulation of the Removal and Trimming of Heritage Trees on Public and 

Private Property Ordinance (referred to herein as the Heritage Tree Ordinance) (San Mateo 

County, 1977). The Significant Tree Ordinance requires a permit for the removal from private 

property of any tree that has a circumference of 38 inches or larger (which is equivalent to 

12 inches diameter at breast height). 

The Heritage Tree Ordinance protects any tree or grove of trees so designated by the County 

Board of Supervisors, as well as any of the tree species and sizes listed in Table 5.14-3 on the 

following page (San Mateo County, 1977). The ordinance regulates activities that could impact 

heritage trees, and provides guidelines for compensating for lost heritage trees when avoidance is 

not feasible. Replacement plantings with acceptable tree species may be required. 

Town of Colma Tree Cutting and Removal Ordinance 

Chapter 5 of the Town of Colma Municipal Code specifies the requirements for tree removal (Town 

of Colma, 2010). Tree removal or activities that would significantly damage trees on private 

property require a tree removal permit from the town, with certain exceptions. Trees are defined as 

any live woody plant having a single perennial stem of 12 inches or more in diameter, or multi- 





Table 5.14-3 

Trees Protected by San Mateo County Heritage Tree Ordinance 

Scientific Name 

Common Name 

Diameter at Breast Height 

Requirements 

(inches) 

Arbutus menziesii Madrone >48 1 

Chrysolepis chrysolphylla Golden chinquapin >20 

Cupressus abramsiana Monterey Cypress All 

Fraxinus latifolia Oregon Ash >12 

Lithocarpus densiflorus Tan oak >48 

Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak >48 

Q. chrysolepis Canyon live oak >40 

Q. garryana Oregon white oak All 

Q. kellogii Black oak >32 

Q. wislizenii Interior live oak >40 

Q. lobata Valley oak >48 

Q. douglasii Blue oak >30 

Umbellularia californica 

California bay or 

laurel 

>48 1 

Torreya californica California nutmeg >39 

Sequoia sempervirens Redwood >72 

Source: San Mateo County, 1977. 

Notes: 

1 Single stems or multiple stems touching each other 4.5 feet above the ground and have a diameter greater than 

48 inches; or clumps visibly connected above ground with a basal area greater than 20 square feet measured 4.5 feet 

above average ground level. 

stemmed perennial plant having an aggregate diameter of 40 inches or more, as measured 4 feet 

above the natural grade. The requirements also apply to any woody plant that has been planted by 

the Town, or planted as required by permit of the Town, even if it is smaller in size than specified 

above. Tree removal permits may include conditions, including a requirement for the replacement 

of each tree removed with a 15-gallon size tree or shrub (1:1 replacement). 

City of South San Francisco Tree Preservation Ordinance 

The City of South San Francisco Street Tree Preservation Ordinance, Chapter 13.28 (City of South 

San Francisco, 2000), protects trees on city property. Street trees are defined as trees in a public 

area along a city street (Ord. 967§ (part) 1984; Ord. 815§ 2 1980), and public area is defined as the 

city ROW between the curb or edge of pavement and the property line along a city street. The 





planting, trimming, or removal of any official street tree in any public area along a city street 

requires a permit from the deputy city manager/city engineer, technical and maintenance 

services. 

Under the City of South San Francisco Tree Preservation Ordinance, Chapter 13.30 (City of South 

San Francisco, 2000) no “protected tree” shall be removed or pruned without a permit. Protected 

trees include: 

 

 

 

Any tree with a circumference of 48 inches or more when measured 54 inches above natural 

grade; or 

A tree or stand of trees so designated based upon findings that it is unique and of importance 

to the public due to its unusual appearance, location, or historical significance; or 

A stand of trees whereby each tree is dependent upon the others for survival. 

For the purposes of the ordinance, “pruning” means the removal of more than one-third of the 

crown or existing foliage of the tree, or more than one-third of the root system. Replacement of 

protected trees may be required as a condition of a permit, but no replacement ratio is designated 

in the tree ordinance. 

City of San Bruno Tree Ordinance 

Chapters 8.24 and 8.25 of the City of San Bruno Municipal Code address tree removal (City of San 

Bruno, 2002); Chapter 8.24 addresses the planting and removal of street trees, and required permits 

for each; and Chapter 8.25 addresses heritage trees. A tree removal permit is required for removal 

of trees or pruning of heritage trees on private or public land. Heritage trees are defined as: 

 

 

 

 

Any native bay (Umbellularia californica), buckeye (Aesculus species), oak (Quercus species), 

redwood, or pine tree that has a diameter of 6 inches or more measured at 54 inches above 

natural grade; 

Any tree or stand of trees designated by resolution of the City Council to be of special 

historical value or of significant community benefit; 

A stand of trees, the nature of which makes each dependent on the others for survival; or 

Any other tree with a trunk diameter of 10 inches or more, measured at 54 inches above 

natural grade. 

Exemptions from the permit requirements are allowed under certain conditions, including for tree 

removal or pruning by or for the City on City-owned open space or park parcels, or when such 

activities are undertaken for fire safety. Public utilities are also exempted, and may remove trees that 

interfere with the safe and efficient operation of the public service for which they are responsible. 

Tree replacement recommendations are at the discretion of the City of San Bruno’s Parks Services 

Manager, and are formulated on the basis of location, condition, value, age, and reasons for tree 

removal. For each heritage tree removed, two 24-inch box size trees, or one 36-inch box size tree 

is required to be planted as replacement. If the Parks Services Manager decides that replacement 

is not feasible, he or she may require payment based on the purchase price and installation costs 

of trees that would be replaced. 





City of Millbrae Tree Protection 

The City of Millbrae Tree Protection and Urban Forestry Program (Millbrae Municipal Code, 

Chapter 8.60) addresses the planting, removal, and altering of street trees in the city (City of 

Millbrae, 2011). Street trees are defined as any woody perennial plant located in any street, 

including a parking strip, having a single main axis or stem, commonly achieving a minimum of 

10 feet in height, and capable of shaping and pruning to develop a branch-free trunk at least 

9 feet in height. Certain provisions apply to public utility companies subject to the California 

Public Utilities Commission. The City encourages the development of master tree plans for the 

planting of street trees, and to ensure a consistent and adequate program for the preservation and 

proper maintenance of the present street tree population. For each street tree removed, one 

24-inch box size tree is required to be planted as a replacement. 




impacts related to biological resources, but generally considers that implementation of the 

proposed project would have a significant impact on biological resources if it would: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any 

species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, 

policies, or regulations, or by CDFW or USFWS; 

Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural 

community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by CDFW or USFWS; 

Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of 

the CWA and as protected under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (including 

but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, 

hydrological interruption, or other means; 

Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife 

species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use 

of native wildlife nursery sites; 6 

Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree 

preservation policy or ordinance; or 

Conflict with the provisions of an adopted HCP, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or 

other approved local, regional, or state HCP. 

6 A wildlife nursery site is an area containing essential habitat features and is used by wildlife over generations for 

rearing young. 






Due to the nature of the PPSU project, there would be no project impacts related to the following 

significance criteria. Therefore, an impact discussion is not provided for the topics described 

below: 


 

Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any 

species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional 

plans, policies, or regulations, or by CDFW or USFWS. Both plant and wildlife species are 

considered under this significance criterion. With respect to plant species, no special-status 

plant species are known to occur within or adjacent to the project sites, and therefore, 

implementation of the PPSU project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any 

special-status plant species either directly or through habitat modifications. Therefore, this 

criterion, as it relates to plant species, is not applicable to the proposed project and is not 


With respect to wildlife species, project operations activities would not result in substantial 

adverse effects on special-status wildlife. As described in Chapter 3, Project Description, 

project operations and maintenance activities would be similar to existing operations and 

maintenance activities and would entail pipe inspections, discharge of water from the 

pipelines as required for inspections or other SFPUC projects, and management of vegetation 

within the SFPUC ROW. As described in the SFPUC ROW Integrated Vegetation 

Management Policy: “all vegetation removal work and consultation on vegetation retention 

will be reviewed and supervised by a SFPUC-qualified professional on a case-by-case basis” 

(SFPUC, 2007). Therefore, this criterion is not applicable as it relates to project operations 

activities and is not analyzed further. However, this significance criterion is applicable to 

project construction activities as it relates to special-status wildlife species and is analyzed 

below under Impact BI-1. 

 

 

 

Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural 

community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by CDFW or 

USFWS. During project operations, maintenance activities would be similar to practices 

implemented by the SFPUC along their ROW at the project sites. As described above, 

operations would be consistent with SFPUC ROW Integrated Vegetation Management Policy 

(SFPUC, 2007). No substantial adverse effects on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural 

communities would occur during operations, and therefore this significance criterion is only 

analyzed as it relates to project construction under Impact BI-2 below. 

Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands. Project operations would 

be consistent with current SFPUC operations and maintenance activities and would not have 

a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands. Therefore this significance 

criterion is only analyzed as it relates to project construction under Impact BI-3 below. 

Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a 

tree preservation policy or ordinance. Project operations after construction would be 

consistent with current operational practices implemented along the SFPUC ROW in the 





project sites. Because the planting of trees is limited by the SFPUC’s ROW Integrated 

Vegetation Management Policy, tree removal during operations would not be likely to be 

required, and there would be no conflicts with local tree ordinances. Therefore, this 

significance criterion is not applicable as it relates to project operations, and it is only 

analyzed as it relates to project construction under Impact BI-4 below. 



 

 

Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or 

wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or 

impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. The proposed PPSU project sites do not 

provide migratory wildlife corridors, nor would the project impede the use of native wildlife 

nursery sites. Therefore, this criterion is not applicable to the proposed project and is not 

analyzed further. 

Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural 

Community Conservation Plan, or other adopted local, regional, or state Habitat 

Conservation Plan. There are no adopted habitat conservation plans, natural community 

conservation plans, or other approved plans that apply to the PPSU project sites. Therefore, 

this criterion is not applicable to the proposed project and is not analyzed further. 

For this Environmental Impact Report, the definition of the word “substantial” as used in the 

significance criteria above has three principal components: 

 

 

 

Magnitude and duration of the impact (e.g., temporary/permanent); 

Uniqueness of the affected resource (rarity); and 

Susceptibility of the affected resource to disturbance. 

The evaluation of significance also considers the interrelationships among these three 

components. For example, a relatively small-magnitude impact on a federally endangered species 

(e.g., California red-legged frog egg destruction) would be considered significant because the 

species is rare and believed to be very susceptible to disturbance. Conversely, a natural 

community such as California nonnative grassland is not necessarily rare or sensitive to 

disturbance, and thus a much larger magnitude of impact would be required to result in a 

significant impact. The susceptibility of the affected resource to disturbance is based on the 

vulnerability of the resource to low-level impacts. 

Impacts on biological resources are evaluated based on the likelihood that special-status species, 

sensitive habitats, wildlife corridors, and protected trees are present within the project area (as 

described in Section 5.14.1, Setting, and summarized in Table 5.14-4) considered in conjunction 

with the likely effects that construction and operations activities might have on these resources. 

Special-status resources that have no potential or are unlikely to occur in the project area are not 

considered in the impact analysis. 

Due to the nature of the proposed project, which entails replacement of underground portions of 

an existing pipeline and restoration of the sites generally to pre-construction conditions, there are 

no operational impacts associated with the project. 





Table 5.14-4 

Summary of Biological Resources within the Project Area 

Site 

Special- 

Status 

Plants 

Species 

Special- 

Status 

Wildlife 

Species 1 

Vegetation 

Community 2 

Sensitive 

Habitat 2 

Wildlife Corridor, 

Migratory Habitat, 

or Wildlife Nursery 

Jurisdictional 

Waters 

Colma _ _ Ruderal _ _ U.S./State 



_ 

CRLF; 

SFDW 

Scrub; 

Ruderal; 

Urban 

Scrub _ U.S./State 


North 

_ _ Urban _ _ _ 


South 

_ _ Ruderal; 

Urban 

_ _ State 

Millbrae _ MBB; MOB; 

PB; WRB; 

WTK; 

SFDW 

Grassland; 

Eucalyptus; 

Oak; Ruderal; 

Urban 

Oak _ U.S./State 

Common 

Staging 

Area 

_ _ Ruderal _ _ _ 


Notes: 

– = Not present 

1 Special-Status Wildlife Species are: CRLF=California red-legged frog; SFDW = San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat; 

MBB = Mission blue butterfly; MOB = monarch butterfly; PB = pallid bat; WRB = western red bat; WTK = white-tailed 

kite 

2 Vegetation communities are: Grassland = Annual Grassland; Scrub = Central Coast Riparian Scrub; Oak = Coast Live 

Oak Woodland; Eucalyptus = Eucalyptus Grove; Ruderal = Ruderal Vegetation; Urban = Urban Landscape 

Source: 

Information for the common staging area interpreted from Baden and San Pedro Valve Lots Improvement Project 

Mitigated Negative Declaration Case No. 2006.1314E (SF Planning, 2008). 




5.14BiologicalResources 

5.14.3.3 ImpactSummary 

The proposed project’s impacts on biological resources and the resulting significance 

determinationsaresummarizedinTable5.145. 

Table5.145 

SummaryofImpacts–BiologicalResources 

SignificanceDetermination 

Impacts 

Colma 

South 




Bruno 

North 


Bruno 

South 

Millbrae 

Common 

Staging 

Area 

ImpactBI1:Constructionoftheproposed 

projectcouldhaveasubstantialadverseeffect 

throughhabitatmodificationonspecialstatus 

wildlifespecies. 



oncoastliveoakwoodland,centralcoast 

riparianscrubhabitat,orothersensitive 

naturalcommunity. 



onjurisdictionalwaters. 


projectcouldbeinconsistentwithlocal 

policiesorordinancesprotectingbiological 

resources,includingtrees. 

ImpactCBI:Implementationoftheproject 

couldresultinacumulativelyconsiderable 

contributiontocumulativeimpactson 

biologicalresourcesduringproject 

construction. 


NI LSM NI NI LS NI 

LSM LSM NI LSM LSM NI 

NI LSM LSM NI NI NI 


Notes: 

NI=NoImpact 

LS=LessthanSignificantimpact,nomitigationrequired 

LSM=LessthanSignificantimpactwithMitigation 



March2013




Impact BI-1: Construction of the proposed project could have a substantial adverse 

effect through habitat modification on special-status wildlife species. (Less than 


Tree Removal (All Sites) 

Tree removal would be required to allow access to the underground water transmission 

pipelines. A few trees may be removed at each project site. More extensive tree removal would be 

required at the South San Francisco and Millbrae sites. At the South San Francisco site, removal of 

approximately 20 willows located within the SFPUC’s ROW would be required. The willows are 

part of the riparian corridor associated with a small section of a drainage adjacent to the site. The 

removal of trees within the riparian corridor would result in a reduction of riparian canopy, 

which could decrease food, shelter, and breeding habitat for wildlife species, as described further 

in Impact BI-2. 

Construction at the Millbrae site includes the removal of a grove of approximately 300 trees, 

dominated by eucalyptus, as well as a portion of coast live oak woodland just east of the 

eucalyptus grove. Removal of the trees and understory vegetation in the grove would result in a 

decrease of food, shelter, and breeding habitat for wildlife species. In addition, a few trees may be 

required to be removed to allow equipment access along the trail from Lomita Avenue, which 

could serve as an access route to the project site. 

Removal of trees and vegetation at any of the project sites could result in nest failure of raptors 

and migratory bird species by inadvertent destruction or disruption of nests bearing eggs or 

young. The removal of trees could also impact bats that may use hollowed trees for maternity 

roosting sites. Additionally, the removal of eucalyptus trees could destroy potential wintering 

habitat for the monarch butterfly. These potential impacts are described further under the 

respective species headings below (in Impact BI-1). Tree removal could also conflict with tree 

protection ordinances, as described under Impact BI-4, below. 

Nonnative Plants (All Sites and Commons Staging Area) 

Earth-moving equipment (excavators, backhoes, etc.) typically collect mud and dirt during 

construction activities. Seeds are contained in the dirt, and if the equipment is not thoroughly 

washed before it leaves the site, the seeds are transported to the next project site, where they flake 

off or are washed off from rain or wet conditions. This is a common problem, and causes the 

spread of invasive, nonnative plants that readily colonize soils, such as yellow star-thistle, purple 

star-thistle, Italian thistle, bull thistle, and stinkwort. Soil disturbance (including clearing, 

grubbing, and grading) destabilizes and exposes soil, and increases the risk of the establishment 

of invasive plants. Such plants may be transported to the site, present in the seed bank, or both, 

and require less soil nutrients and water to establish than native plant species. Invasive plant 

seeds already present in the seed bank of soil at the sites (Cal-IPC, 2012). Invasive, nonnative 

plant species suppress growth and regeneration of native plant species, which are a primary food 

source for many wildlife species. Invasive, nonnative plants also compete with native plants for 

resources such as water, space, and nutrients. Native and special-status plant species are easily 

out-competed by the more vigorous invasive, nonnative species. 





The California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC) provides an Invasive Plant Inventory on their 

website (Cal-IPC, 2006). The CalWeedMapper website provides maps and lists of invasive plants 

for each county in California. Cal-IPC assigns a rating of high for plants that have severe 

ecological impacts; moderate for plants that have substantial and adverse impacts; and limited 

for plants that have minor ecological impacts. The San Francisco Bay RWQCB also maintains a 

list of invasive species and uses the Cal-IPC ranking system to describe how invasive each species 

on the list is. The list is entitled “Invasive Non-Native Species to Avoid in Wetland Projects in the 

San Francisco Bay Region” (RWQCB, 2006). Although nonnative species occur at all of the project 

sites and the common staging area, precautionary measures should be taken to prevent the 

spread and growth of additional invasive species. Some special-status wildlife species rely 

entirely on native plants for breeding; for example, the Mission blue butterfly and other butterfly 

species only lay eggs on certain species of lupine. The further eradication of native plant species 

by infestations of nonnatives, either introduced to the site by contaminated construction 

equipment or through the disturbance of existing seed beds, could harm special-status wildlife 

species. The introduction of invasive species could prevent the growth of native host plants 

required by special-status species, which would be a significant impact. 

Mission Blue Butterfly (Millbrae Site) 

At the Millbrae site, project construction activities would occur in areas that could provide 

breeding habitat for the Mission blue butterfly. The construction staging area spoils area north of 

the construction zone, adjacent to residences and the City of Millbrae open space area could serve 

as breeding habitat, although it is unlikely that the Mission blue butterfly would occur on the site. 

The removal of vegetation from the annual grasslands could remove the larval host plants and 

destroy larvae of the Mission blue butterfly. In addition, introduction of invasive species that 

prevent the regeneration of the larval host plant, as described above, could result in loss of 

breeding habitat. Temporary loss of habitat during project construction and possible direct 

mortality of Mission blue butterfly would be a significant impact. 

Monarch Butterfly (Millbrae Site) 

Additionally, at the Millbrae site, project construction activities would occur in areas that provide 

wintering habitat for the monarch butterfly. Although no monarch butterflies were observed in 

the eucalyptus grove within the SFPUC ROW at the Millbrae site during December 2010 surveys 

and there are no CNDDB records for the area, the removal of eucalyptus trees could destroy 

potential wintering habitat for the monarch butterfly. Loss of wintering habitat for monarch 

butterfly would be permanent; however, because no monarch butterflies were observed during 

surveys and much of the eucalyptus grove adjacent to the project site would remain, this impact 

would be less than significant. Therefore, potential impacts on Monarch butterfly during project 

construction activities would be less than significant. 

California Red-Legged Frog (South San Francisco Site) 

At the South San Francisco site, project construction activities would occur in an area that is a 

potential dispersal habitat for California red-legged frog; therefore, site clearing and preparation 

for construction activities could temporarily disturb habitat for this species. The movement of 

construction vehicles across the project area could cause direct mortality of individuals by 

crushing them. Trenches and excavations, if left open during the night, could trap and injure 





California red-legged frogs that are moving through the construction area. Construction activities 

could also impede the dispersal movement of juveniles or the movement of adults between 

breeding ponds and upland refugia. Noise, vibration, the presence of human activities, and 

degradation of water quality during construction could affect habitat and cause injury or 

mortality to the California red-legged frog. The potential for direct mortality of California redlegged 

frog in this area would be a significant impact. 

San Francisco Dusky-Footed Woodrat (South San Francisco and Millbrae Sites) 

At the South San Francisco and Millbrae sites construction activities would occur in woodland 

and riparian habitat that potentially provide breeding habitat for the San Francisco dusky-footed 

woodrat. Impacts to San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat through direct removal of habitat could 

cause temporary disruption of breeding habitat due to construction noise and activities. The 

potential for direct mortality of San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat in these areas would be a 

significant impact. 

Nesting Birds, Raptors, and Bats (All Sites) 

Construction activities could remove the nesting and foraging habitat of special-status birds and 

other wildlife that depend on grassland, woodland, eucalyptus grove, and riparian habitat 

through direct removal of habitat, or could result in disruption of breeding and foraging habitat 

due to construction noise and activities. Project construction could result in the removal of large 

mature trees in developed and ruderal areas that provide important nesting habitat for nesting 

birds, raptors, and bats. Potentially affected bird and raptor species include nesting white-tailed 

kite. Potentially affected bat species include western red bat and pallid bat. These species are 

sensitive to human activity and noise from construction activity within 500 feet of an active nest 

or maternity site (for bats) could disrupt breeding of these species. 

Mature trees are located within the PPSU sites. Trees that are located above or adjacent to the 

pipelines would be removed to allow access to the pipelines and for consistency with the 

SFPUC’s ROW Integrated Vegetation Management Policy (SFPUC, 2007), which limits the 

location and types of vegetation within the ROW, particularly trees. The PPSU project would 

require more extensive tree removal at the South San Francisco and Millbrae sites as a dense 

stand of trees is established above the ROW along portions of each project site. The potential for 

temporary and permanent habitat loss and disruption of breeding and foraging habitat in these 

areas would be a significant impact. 

Impact Conclusion 

Construction of the proposed project could result in significant impacts associated with the 

temporary loss of habitat for Mission blue butterfly and temporary loss of potential California 

red-legged frog dispersal habitat; and loss of breeding habitat for San Francisco dusky-footed 

woodrat, birds, raptors, and bats, as described above. 

Mitigation Measures M-BI-1a through M-BI-1h, described below, would address impacts on 

special-status wildlife that have potential to occur on the project sites, as well as impacts related 

to loss and disruption of breeding and foraging habitat for nesting birds, raptors, and bats by: 

requiring general protection measures; a worker training and awareness program; biological 





monitoring for certain species; exclusion fencing to keep certain species outside of the work areas; 

implementation of protocols if individuals are found in the project area during construction; and 

revegetation and site restoration, including measures to prevent the spread and introduction of 

harmful invasive plant species that could prevent the growth of native plant species necessary for 

the survival of some special-status species. 

In addition, Mitigation Measure M-HY-1: Preparation and Implementation of a SWPPP (see 

Section 5.16, Hydrology and Water Quality) would reduce significant impacts to wildlife species 

from sediment-laden water, which can be lethal to aquatic species such as the California redlegged 

frog. Sediment suspended in water can clog the gills of amphibians and fish, causing them 

to suffocate. Proper best management practices (BMPs) (i.e., silt fence, straw wattles) would 

protect aquatic environments by preventing construction spoils from entering ditches and 

drainages and increasing turbidity. The preparation and implementation of a stormwater 

pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) to avoid construction-related water quality impacts would 

provide protection for aquatic-dependent special-status species. 

Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measures M-BI-1a through M-BI-1h, and M-HY-1, 

impacts to special-status wildlife species during construction would be reduced to a less-thansignificant 

level. 

Mitigation Measure M-BI-1a: General Protection Measures 


The SFPUC shall ensure that the following general measures are implemented by the 

contractor(s) during construction to minimize or avoid impacts on biological resources: 

 

 

Construction contractor(s) shall minimize the extent of the construction disturbance 

as much as feasible, which shall be limited to boundaries of the project sites. 

For trees to be retained or trimmed: 

 

 

 

A qualified arborist or a qualified biologist will identify trees to be retained, and 

exclusion fencing will be installed no closer than the drip line of these trees. 

Prior to the start of construction, SFPUC or its contractors will install exclusion 

fencing at the limits of construction, outside the dripline of all trees bordering the 

limits. 

All necessary tree pruning will be completed either by a certified arborist or by 

the contractor under the supervision of either an International Society of 

Arboriculture qualified arborist, American Society of Consulting Arborists 

consulting arborist, or a qualified horticulturist. 

 

 

Project-related vehicles shall observe a 15-mile-per-hour speed limit on unpaved 

roads in the work area, or as otherwise determined by the applicable regulatory 

agencies. 

The contractor shall provide closed garbage containers for the disposal of all foodrelated 

trash items (e.g., wrappers, cans, bottles, food scraps). All garbage shall be 





collected daily from the project site and placed in a closed container from which 

garbage shall be removed weekly. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Construction personnel shall not feed or otherwise attract wildlife in the project area. 

No pets shall be allowed in the project area. 

No firearms shall be allowed in the project area. 

Staging areas shall be located at least 100 feet from riparian habitat, creeks, and 

wetlands, where feasible. If not feasible, then staging areas shall be situated outside 

of the dripline of riparian trees. If a 100-foot setback is not feasible due to field 

constraints, the project biologist will work with the contractor to determine where 

the silt fence erected for perimeter control should be placed, and what additional 

BMPs may be required to prevent construction spoils and sediment from leaving the 

work area. Sediment controls, such as silt fence or straw wattles, shall be erected 

along the perimeter of all construction and staging areas to minimize the transport of 

sediment from the site. If silt fence is used, the fence shall be installed so that the 

stakes face toward the outside of the work area. 

Exclusion fencing shall be erected along the boundaries of construction and staging 

areas to provide perimeter control, and to prevent construction personnel and 

activities from entering sensitive areas, as determined to be needed by the project 

biologist. 

If vehicle or equipment fueling or maintenance is necessary, it shall be performed in 

the designated staging area, consistent with Mitigation Measure M-HY-1: 

Preparation and Implementation of a SWPPP (see Section 5.16, Hydrology and 

Water Quality). 

Mitigation Measure M-BI-1b: Worker Training and Awareness Program 


The SFPUC shall ensure that mandatory biological resources awareness training is 

provided to all construction personnel as follows: 

 

 

 

The training shall be developed and provided by a qualified biologist or construction 

compliance manager familiar with the sensitive species that may occur in the project 

area. If a consulting biologist prepares the training program, SFPUC staff shall 

approve the program prior to implementation. 

The training shall be provided before any work, including vegetation clearing and 

grading, occurs within the work area boundaries. 

The training shall provide education on the natural history of the special-status 

species potentially occurring in the project area, and discuss the required mitigation 

measures to avoid impacts on the special-status species and the penalties for failing 

to comply with biological mitigation requirements. 





 

 

The environmental awareness training program for construction personnel shall 

include an orientation regarding the importance of preventing the spread of invasive 

nonnative plants. 

If new construction personnel are added to the project, the contractor shall ensure 

that they receive training prior to starting work. The subsequent training of 

personnel can include a videotape of the initial training and/or the use of written 

materials rather than in-person training by a biologist. 

Mitigation Measure M-BI-1c: Prepare and Implement a Vegetation Restoration Plan 

This mitigation measure applies to all project sites, but does not apply to the common 

staging area. The SFPUC or contractor shall prepare and implement a vegetation 

restoration plan with detailed specifications for minimizing the introduction of invasive 

weeds, and for restoring all temporarily disturbed areas. The plan shall include methods 

to ensure that the contractor successfully implements the vegetation restoration plan 

after the project is completed, so that proposed success criteria can be achieved 

subsequent to construction. 

 

 

 

 

 

The plan shall be developed by a qualified restoration ecologist familiar with the 

ecological requirements of special-status species. Willows removed from the South 

San Francisco site, north of Westborough Boulevard, shall be replaced with 

vegetation that would provide shelter for California red-legged frog, as specified in 

the SFPUC’s ROW Integrated Vegetation Management Policy (SFPUC, 2007). 

The plan shall be developed with the intent to replace (to the extent possible) the 

function and values of trees removed during the construction project with plants that 

are acceptable for planting within the SFPUC ROW. 

The plan shall indicate the best time of year for seeding to occur and will be 

consistent with the SFPUC’s ROW Integrated Vegetation Management Policy 

(SFPUC, 2007). The restoration plan shall specify measures to remove and/or control 

weeds in the project area. For grassland and ruderal areas, the affected areas shall be 

reseeded with a native or noninvasive grass and forb seed mix. 

Replacement of ordinance-protected trees shall be completed as described in 

Mitigation Measure M-BI-4: Replacement of Trees to Be Removed. As specified 

therein, a qualified biologist shall conduct post-construction monitoring of the 

replacement trees for 5 years. 

The SFPUC or contractor shall ensure that topsoil is salvaged during construction in 

areas that will be disturbed by grading and earthmoving activities (including during 

the preparation of spoils sites), stockpiled separately from subsoils, and protected 

from erosion (e.g., covered or watered); that composting amendments are added, if 

necessary; and, if needed, that potentially compacted construction work areas are 

properly prepared prior to reuse of the soil in the post-construction restoration of 

temporarily disturbed areas. The SFPUC shall ensure that a minimum of 12 inches of 

topsoil is salvaged; or, if there is less than 12 inches of topsoil, as much as practicable. 





 

 

 

 

Construction equipment shall arrive at the project areas free of soil, seed, and plant 

parts to reduce the likelihood of introducing new weed species. Prior to leaving the 

project site or moving between sites, construction equipment shall again be cleaned 

of soil, seed, and plant parts so as not to introduce new nonnative species to other 

project areas or off-project locations. 

Any soil amendments, gravel, etc., required for construction and/or restoration 

activities that would be placed within the upper 12 inches of the ground surface shall 

be free of vegetation and plant material, and certified pathogen-free. Imported fill 

material shall be covered with the topsoil layer to prevent any imported seed bed 

from growing. 

Certified, weed-free, imported erosion-control materials (or rice straw in upland 

areas) shall be used exclusively, as applicable (this measure concerns biological 

material and does not preclude the use of silt fences, etc.). Erosion-control materials 

shall be natural and biodegradable, such as burlap wattles, and not have plastic 

netting, especially in areas with the potential for California red-legged frog, to 

prevent wildlife entanglement. 

No invasive nonnative plant species shall be used in any restoration plantings. 

Mitigation Measure M-BI-1d: Minimize Disturbance to Nesting Birds and Raptors 


As feasible, the SFPUC shall conduct tree and shrub removal in the project areas during 

the nonbreeding season (generally August 15 through February 15) for migratory birds, 

raptors, and special-status bird species. If trees cannot be removed outside of the bird 

breeding season, nesting bird surveys will be conducted on all trees prior to removal. 

If construction activities must occur during the bird breeding season (February 15 to 

August 15), the SFPUC shall retain a qualified wildlife biologist who is experienced in 

identifying birds and their habitat to conduct nesting-raptor surveys in and within 300 

feet of the project area. Migratory passerine bird surveys shall be conducted within 

50 feet of all work areas (as feasible) unless otherwise directed by CDFW. If an area is not 

accessible for survey, the project biologist shall make a determination if further survey is 

necessary, and may request assistance to enter properties that may need closer 

investigation. All migratory bird and active raptor nests within these areas shall be 

mapped. These surveys must be conducted within 2 weeks prior to initiation of 

construction activities at any time between February 15 and August 15. If no active nests 

are detected during surveys, no additional mitigation is required. 

If migratory bird and/or active raptor nests are found in the project areas or in the 

adjacent surveyed area, the SFPUC shall establish a no-disturbance buffer around the 

nesting location to avoid disturbance or destruction of the nest site until after the 

breeding season or after a wildlife biologist determines that the young have fledged 

(usually late June through mid-July). The extent of these buffers would be determined by 

a wildlife biologist in consultation with CDFW and would depend on the species’ 

sensitivity to disturbance (which can vary among species); the level of noise or 





construction disturbance; line of sight between the nest and the disturbance; ambient 

levels of noise and other disturbances; and consideration of other topographical or 

artificial barriers. The wildlife biologist shall analyze and use these factors to assist the 

CDFW in making an appropriate decision on buffer distances. 

Mitigation Measure M-BI-1e: Preconstruction Surveys for Special-Status Bats and 

Avoidance and Minimization Measures 

This mitigation measure applies to the Millbrae site. Not more than 1 week prior to tree 

removal in the project areas, a qualified biologist (i.e., one familiar with the identification 

of bats and signs of bats) shall identify trees that might be potential day or maternity 

roosts. Bats may be present any time of the year. The biologist shall thoroughly search 

the tree or snag that provides appropriate habitat (trees with foliage or cavities or that are 

hollow) for the presence of roosting bats or evidence of bats. If bats are found or evidence 

of use by bats is present, the following procedures shall be implemented before felling 

the tree: 

1. Trees shall be removed under the warmest possible conditions. Peel any sections of 

the exfoliated bark off the tree gently and search for any roosting bats underneath. 

Create noise and vibrations on the tree itself. Noise and vibrations may include 

running a chain saw and making shallow cuts in the trunk (where bark has been), 

and striking the tree base with fallen limbs or tools such as hammers. Disturbance 

shall be near-continuous for 10 minutes, and then another 10 minutes shall pass 

before the tree is felled. When cutting sections of the trunk, if any hollows or cavities 

(such as woodpecker holes) are discovered, be especially careful to check for the 

presence of bats in those areas. Cut slowly and carefully at all times. If possible, 

section trunk near cavities to focus noise and vibrations, and open hollows by 

sectioning off a side. 

2. The SFPUC will ensure that trees are not removed or altered until CDFW has been 

contacted for guidance on measures to avoid and minimize disturbance of the bats. 

Additional measures may include monitoring trees, excluding bats from a tree until 

it is removed and/or restricting the timing of tree removal, and use of a construction 

buffer to avoid disturbance of breeding colonies or disturbance of young before they 

are able to fly (for pallid bats, this period is between April and August). 

Mitigation Measure M-BI-1f: Mitigation for the Mission Blue Butterfly 

This mitigation measure applies to the Millbrae site. At the Millbrae site, not more than 

2 weeks prior to the onset of work activities (including equipment mobilization) and 

immediately prior to commencing work, the qualified biologist shall survey grassland 

habitat in the project area for Mission blue butterfly and its larval host plant. Host plants 

identified within the project boundaries shall be fenced or flagged and avoided during 

construction. 

If it is infeasible to avoid host plants of the Mission blue butterfly, SFPUC shall restore 

the site to pre-construction conditions as specified in the Vegetation Restoration Plan. 





Mitigation Measure M-BI-1g: Mitigation for San Francisco Dusky-Footed Woodrat 

Middens 

This mitigation measure applies to the South San Francisco and Millbrae sites. Not more 

than 2 weeks prior to the onset of work activities (including equipment mobilization) and 

immediately prior to commencing work, the qualified biologist shall survey the areas to 

be disturbed within the Central Coast riparian scrub (South San Francisco site) and 

eucalyptus grove and coast live oak woodland (Millbrae site) for San Francisco duskyfooted 

woodrat and their nests. 

If no middens are found within such areas, no further action is required. 

If middens are found and can be avoided, the biologist shall direct the contractor in 

placing orange barrier fencing between the proposed construction clearing and the 

midden, allowing as much room as possible to avoid indirect disturbance to the midden, 

but no less than 2 feet from and along the construction side of the middens to protect 

them from construction activities. 

If avoidance is not feasible and the minimum fencing distance cannot be achieved, a 

qualified biologist shall disassemble middens or, if adjacent habitat is not suitable, trap 

and relocate woodrats out of the construction area (using live-traps) prior to the start of 

construction. In addition, the biologists shall attempt to relocate the disassembled 

midden to the same area where the woodrats are released. If young are present during 

disassembling, discontinue disassembling and inspect every 48 hours until young have 

relocated. The midden may not be fully disassembled until the young have left. 

Mitigation Measure M-BI-1h: Mitigation for the California Red-Legged Frog 

This mitigation measure applies to the South San Francisco site. Not more than 2 weeks 

prior to the onset of work activities (including equipment mobilization) and immediately 

prior to commencing work, the qualified biologist shall survey the South San Francisco 

site project area for California red-legged frog, and potential refuge or burrow/estivation 

sites. As feasible, potential burrow/estivation areas identified within the project 

boundaries shall be temporarily fenced and avoided. At locations where potential refuge/ 

estivation burrows are identified and cannot be avoided, burrows shall be excavated by 

hand or by other means by a qualified biologist, approved by the CDFW and USFWS, 

prior to construction. If a burrow is occupied, the individual animal shall be moved to 

suitable habitat within 0.25 mile of the project area, or other location as agreed by the 

appropriate agencies, where a natural burrow or artificial burrow will be constructed of 

PVC pipe. Even if California red-legged frog species are not found at the site, temporary 

exclusion fencing shall be installed as described below to prevent movement of the 

species. 

At the beginning of each work day at the South San Francisco site during initial ground 

disturbance, including grading, excavation, and vegetation removal activities, a qualified 

biological monitor shall conduct on site monitoring for California red-legged frog in the 

area where ground disturbance shall occur, as follows: 





 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The South San Francisco site shall be surveyed within a week prior to any ground 

disturbing or vegetation removal activities. 

Prior to the start of construction at the South San Francisco site, the contractor, in 

coordination with a qualified biologist, shall install wildlife exclusion fencing to 

prevent species such as California red-legged frog from moving through the project 

site. If a silt fence is used as an exclusion fence, it shall be installed with the stakes on 

the inside of the work area (facing construction) so that wildlife cannot climb up the 

stakes to enter the construction zone. The SFPUC shall ensure that the temporary 

fencing is continuously maintained until all construction activities are completed, 

and that construction equipment is confined to the designated work areas. The 

fencing shall be made of suitable material that does not allow the species to pass 

through, and the bottom shall be buried to a depth of 6 inches (or to a sufficient 

depth specified by the applicable resource agencies) so that these species cannot 

crawl under the fence. The fencing shall have one-way escape funnels to allow for 

species to leave the site. 

Perimeter fences shall be inspected weekly to ensure they do not have any tears or 

holes, that the bottoms of the fences are still buried, and that no individuals have 

been trapped in the fences. 

Any California red-legged frogs found along and inside the fence shall be closely 

monitored until they move away from the construction area, or a qualified biologist 

may be brought in to relocate the frog as described above. 

All open trenches or holes and areas under parked vehicles shall be checked daily for 

the presence of California red-legged frogs. 

All excavated or deep-walled holes or trenches greater than 2 feet shall be covered at 

the end of each workday using plywood or similar materials, or escape ramps shall 

be constructed of earth fill or wooden planks. Before such holes are filled, they shall 

be thoroughly inspected for trapped animals. 

In cases where excavations require dewatering, the intakes shall be screened with a 

maximum mesh size of 5 millimeters. 

Project personnel shall be required to immediately report any harm, injury, or 

mortality of a special-status species during construction (including entrapment) to 

the construction foreman or biological monitor, and the construction foreman or 

biological monitor shall immediately notify the SFPUC. The SFPUC shall provide 

verbal notification to the USFWS Endangered Species Office in Sacramento, 

California, and/or to the local CDFW warden or biologist (as applicable) within one 

working day of the incident. The SFPUC shall follow up with written notification to 

USFWS and/or CDFW (as applicable) within five working days of the incident. All 

observations of federally- and state-listed species shall be recorded on CNDDB field 

sheets and sent to the CDFW by the SFPUC or representative biological monitor. 

Willows removed from the South San Francisco site, north of Westborough 

Boulevard, shall be replaced with vegetation that would provide shelter for 





California red-legged frog, as specified in the SFPUC’s ROW Integrated Vegetation 

Management Policy (SFPUC, 2007). Replacement plantings will be included in the 

Vegetation Restoration Plan. 


effect on coast live oak woodland, central coast riparian scrub habitat, or other 

sensitive natural community. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) 

Coast Live Oak Woodland 

The only coast live oak woodlands within the PPSU study area are located at the Millbrae site. 

These coast live oak woodlands are protected under the Oak Woodlands Conservation Act 

because the canopy cover is composed of greater than 10 percent oak (CRA, 2001). 

The approximately 2.83 acres of coast live oak woodlands within the study area comprise a small 

portion of the oak woodlands that are the primary vegetation community within the 

approximately 16.3-acre City of Millbrae open space area. 

Within the PPSU study area, the majority of the oak woodlands, approximately 2.47 acres, are 

located along the trail from Lomita Avenue that extends through the City of Millbrae open space 

area (Figure 5.14-5). A few trees may be required to be removed and/or trimmed to allow access 

for equipment along the trail. Otherwise, oaks along the trail will not be affected by the project. 

The remainder of oak woodlands within the study area, approximately 0.36 acre, are located 

within the pipeline construction zone where the live oak woodland abuts and somewhat 

intergrades with the adjacent eucalyptus grove. The trees within the ROW would be required to 

be removed. 

The oaks within the SFPUC ROW are located at the periphery of the woodlands, and would 

likely have diminished habitat value due to their immediate adjacency to the golf course fairway, 

which is routinely maintained. The removal of the 0.36-acre area conservatively represents 

approximately 2 percent of the oak woodland-dominated area within the contiguous City of 

Millbrae open space area, because the 0.36-acre area classified as oak woodlands in the ROW 

includes several nonnative tree species interspersed with the oaks. Given the scale of the 

impacted area, the removal of coast live oak woodlands within the project site would not result in 

a substantial loss or conversion of oak woodlands that would have a significant effect on the 

environment (CEQA public resources code §21083.4). 

Therefore, the impact on coast live oak woodland habitat would be less than significant. Coast 

live oak woodland does not occur at the Colma, South San Francisco, San Bruno North, or San 

Bruno South sites, or at the common staging area, and therefore there would be no impact to oak 

woodlands at these sites. 

Central Coast Riparian Scrub Habitat 

Aside from protected coast live oak woodland at the Millbrae site as described above, the only 

other sensitive natural community identified with the project area is Central Coast riparian scrub, 

located at the South San Francisco site. Therefore, no impact to sensitive communities would 

occur at the Colma, San Bruno North, or San Bruno South sites, or at the common staging area. 





The Central Coast riparian scrub at the South San Francisco site is a sensitive habitat because of 

its jurisdictional designation as riparian habitat under CDFW Codes §1600 through §1602. The 

willow canopy is continuous outside of the study area to the west, where a small natural 

drainage provides a riparian context to the willow stand. Although the drainage associated with 

this habitat is beyond the project site, it has a distinct bed, bank, and channel, and CDFW may 

take jurisdiction over the riparian vegetation surrounding it. CDFW requires notification about 

any activity that could adversely affect an existing fish or wildlife resource (CDFW Code 1602, 

4Ai). Project construction would remove approximately 0.17 acre of riparian scrub vegetation, as 

described above under Impact BI-1. Because the growth of the scrub above the pipelines is not 

consistent with the SFPUC ROW Integrated Vegetation Management Policy, the trees would not 

be replanted after construction is completed, resulting in a significant impact to riparian habitat. 


The less-than-significant impact on coast live oak woodlands at the Millbrae site would be further 

reduced by implementation of Mitigation Measure M-BI-1a: General Protection Measures, 

which would require the installation of exclusion fencing along the PPSU project work area 

boundaries adjacent to the oak woodlands to prevent construction personnel from damaging oak 

vegetation outside of the work area. 

The removal of mature and emergent Central Coast riparian scrub along with native and 

nonnative vegetation located along the SFPUC ROW would be a significant impact on riparian 

habitat. The mature willows provide essential habitat for many species of birds and mammals 

including special-status species that depend on them for breeding, cover, and foraging. Removal 

of this vegetation would temporarily decrease the availability of food and shelter for wildlife. 

Mitigation Measures M-BI-2a: Minimize Disturbance to Riparian Habitat and M-BI-2b: 

Supplemental Measures for the Vegetation Restoration Plan (identified below), along with 

Mitigation Measures M-BI-1a: General Protection Measures, M-BI-1b: Worker Training and 

Awareness Program, and M-BI-1c: Prepare and Implement a Vegetation Restoration Plan 

(which are described above under Impact BI-1), would protect sensitive habitats and mature 

native trees by minimizing the overall area of construction disturbance and avoiding sensitive 

habitats, implementing a worker training and awareness program, and establishing protocols 

and performance standards for revegetation and restoration of disturbed areas. Therefore, 

impacts to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities would be less than significant 


Mitigation Measure M-BI-2a: Minimize Disturbance to Riparian Habitat 

This mitigation measure applies to the South San Francisco site. To minimize impacts to 

Central Coast riparian scrub and water quality in the drainage situated adjacent to the 

northwest end of the work area, a silt fence shall be placed along the work area 

boundaries adjacent to the drainage. This would prevent construction personnel from 

damaging riparian vegetation outside of the work area, and prevent sediment and debris 

from entering the drainage. 





Mitigation Measure M-BI-2b: Supplemental Measures for the Vegetation Restoration 

Plan 

This mitigation measure applies to the South San Francisco site. The following activities 

shall be completed for the Vegetation Restoration Plan at the site: 

 

 

 

 

To facilitate preparation of the plan, the SFPUC shall ensure that prior to 

construction a qualified botanist (i.e., one experienced in identifying plant species in 

the project area) performs additional preconstruction surveys of the areas to collect 

more detailed vegetation composition data, including species occurrence, vegetation 

characterization (tree diameter size, etc.), and percent cover of plant species. Photo 

documentation shall be used to show pre-project conditions. 

If required, the SFPUC shall provide the vegetation restoration plan to the CDFW 

and RWQCB during the permitting process, as any vegetation to be removed may 

provide habitat for special-status species and may also be within areas under the 

jurisdiction of the Corps and the RWQCB. 

Although trees cannot be replanted within the SFPUC ROW, native plant species 

allowed for planting as described in the Right of Way Integrated Vegetation 

Management Policy (SFPUC, 2007) should be selected and planted in appropriate 

locations. Enhancement of the riparian corridor outside of the ROW may be 

incorporated into the Vegetation Restoration Plan (see Impact BI-1, above, for 

description). 

To ensure success, vegetation planted as part of the vegetation restoration plan will 

be monitored for 1 year following installation. In addition, monitoring shall be 

conducted for 5 years for any tree species planted. 


effect on jurisdictional waters. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) 

Several water conveyance features extend through the project sites; three of these features would 

be under U.S. and State jurisdiction. Two concrete culverts convey creeks in the project sites: an 

unnamed tributary of Colma Creek extends under the Colma site and a portion of Twelve Mile 

Creek extends under the South San Francisco site. These areas would be classified as “other 

waters” of the United States. In addition, a concrete v-ditch located at the Millbrae site at the 

eastern end of Larkspur Drive adjacent to the Green Hills Country Club would be under U.S. 

jurisdiction. At the Colma site, the project activities would require the demolition of a portion of 

the culvert and the diversion of the upstream flow around the construction area by use of a 

temporary pipeline and cofferdams to maintain natural flow in the culvert downstream of the 

construction area, potentially resulting in significant impacts to jurisdictional waters. After 

completion of the pipeline replacement, the SFPUC would restore the culvert and replace the 

segment that was removed in kind. Construction activities at the South San Francisco and 

Millbrae sites would not affect the existing creek culvert or v-ditch. These features would also fall 

under the jurisdiction of the RWQCB. 





Additionally, features that would fall under the jurisdiction of the RWQCB would include 

several man-made ditches excavated in uplands at the Colma, San Bruno South, and Millbrae 

sites. Construction-related impacts on these waters of the State could occur if ditches are removed 

for construction activities or if erosion and sediment enters the ditches, resulting in significant 

impacts due to degradation of water quality from pollution and dewatering discharges. One 

v-ditch at the Colma site and one at the San Bruno South site would be removed for construction 

activities. After completion of the pipeline replacement, the SFPUC would replace the v-ditches 

in kind. 

Construction-related impacts on jurisdictional waters could also occur adjacent to the drainage at 

the South San Francisco site without the proper placement and maintenance of BMPs. Impacts on 

riparian habitat associated with trenching adjacent to the drainage were discussed in Impact BI-2, 

above, and could be significant because construction-related debris, or toxins, and/or sedimentladen 

water could enter the water if there are no protective measures (i.e., silt fence, straw 

wattles). 

No jurisdictional waters were identified at the San Bruno North site or the common staging area. 

Therefore, there would be no impacts to jurisdictional waters in these areas. 


Implementation of Mitigation Measure M-BI-3: Avoidance and Protection Measures for 

Jurisdictional Water Bodies, along with Mitigation Measures M-BI-1a: General Protection 

Measures and M-BI-1b: Worker Training and Awareness Program (described above under 

Impact BI-1)—in addition to compliance with the requirements of the CWA Section 404 

Nationwide Permit 12 (Utility Line Activities) and, if required, Nationwide Permit 33 (Temporary 

Construction, Access, and Dewatering); RWQCB Section 401 Permit; and CDFW Streambed 

Alteration Agreement (if permits are required)—would address impacts on aquatic resources by 

requiring staging areas to be set back from riparian areas, where feasible, requiring worker 

training regarding the resources present and general impact avoidance, requiring temporary 

fencing around the construction zone, and establishing protocols and performance standards for 

revegetation and restoration activities for impacted riparian areas. Additionally, Mitigation 

Measure M-HY-1: Preparation and Implementation of a SWPPP (see Section 5.16, Hydrology 

and Water Quality), which prescribes BMPs to protect water quality in receiving water bodies 

during construction activities, would reduce impacts to jurisdictional waters. Therefore, impacts 

to federal and State protected wetlands would be less than significant with mitigation. 

Mitigation Measure M-BI-3: Avoidance and Protection Measures for Jurisdictional 

Water Bodies 

This mitigation measure applies to the Colma, San Bruno South, and Millbrae sites. The 

SFPUC and its contractors shall minimize impacts on waters of the United States and 

waters of the State by implementing the following measures: 

 

Erosion and sedimentation control measures such as a silt fence shall be installed 

adjacent to all water conveyance features to be avoided within 100 feet of any 

proposed construction activity, and signs installed indicating the required avoidance. 

If a 100-foot setback is not feasible due to field constraints, the project biologist or 





qualified environmental inspector will work with the contractor to determine where 

the silt fence erected for perimeter control should be placed, and what additional 

erosion and sedimentation controls, such as sediment traps, may be required to 

prevent construction spoils and sediment from leaving the work area. No equipment 

mobilization, grading, clearing, or storage of equipment or machinery, or similar 

activity, shall occur until a representative of the SFPUC has inspected and approved 

the fencing installed around these features. The SFPUC shall ensure that the 

temporary fencing is continuously maintained until all construction activities are 

completed. No construction activities, including equipment movement, material 

storage, or temporary spoil stockpiling, shall be allowed within the fenced areas 

protecting water features. 

 

Exposed slopes shall be stabilized immediately upon the completion of construction 

activities. 

Impact BI-4: Construction of the proposed project could be inconsistent with local 

policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, including trees. (Less than 


Applicable tree ordinances and mitigation steps are listed below for each site. 

Colma Site 

Tree permits are required by the Town of Colma for any live woody plant having a single 

perennial stem of 12 inches or more in diameter, or any multi-stemmed perennial plant having an 

aggregate diameter of 40 inches or more as measured 4 feet above the natural grade. A 1-to-1 

replacement ratio with a 15-gallon size tree or shrub is required. Tree removal would not be 

required at this site; therefore, there would be no impact resulting from inconsistencies with local 

ordinances protecting trees. 


Tree removal and pruning would be required for construction of the project at this site. The City 

of South San Francisco protects street trees (which are trees in a public area along a city street), as 

well as any tree with a circumference of 48 inches or more when measured 54 inches above 

natural grade, or trees or stands of trees that have been designated as protected because they are 

of importance to the public due to their unusual appearance, location, or historical significance. 

The city has not designated a replacement ratio for protected trees. No street trees will be 

removed from the site; however, as described above under Impact BI-1, a dense stand of willows 

(approximately 20 trees) would be removed, resulting in a significant impact. 

A portion of the South San Francisco Site falls within unincorporated San Mateo County. 

However, tree removal at the project site south of Westborough Boulevard (within 

unincorporated San Mateo County) would not be required; therefore, there would be no impact 

resulting from inconsistencies with the San Mateo County local ordinances protecting trees. 





San Bruno North and South Sites 

The City of San Bruno Municipal Code protects from removal or pruning any native bay, 

buckeye, oak, redwood or pine trees that are 6 inches or greater when measured at 54 inches 

above grade. All other trees with a trunk diameter of 10 inches or more measured at 54 inches 

above grade also are protected. For each heritage tree removed, two 24-inch box size trees, or one 

36-inch box size tree is required to be planted as a replacement. 

At the San Bruno North site, tree removal may be required to allow for excavation of access pits 

to the tunnel, and to allow for construction staging. If trees protected by the ordinance are 

removed, it would result in inconsistencies with the city’s Municipal Code, resulting in a 

significant impact. 

At the San Bruno South site, tree removal would not be required. Therefore, there would be no 

impact resulting from inconsistencies with local ordinances protecting trees at the San Bruno 

South site. 

Millbrae Site 

As described above under Impact BI-1, approximately 300 trees, dominated by eucalyptus and 

interspersed with native oaks, would be removed from the SFPUC’s ROW at the Millbrae site. In 

addition, a few trees may be required to be removed along the trail from Lomita Avenue (outside 

of the SFPUC ROW). Because the City of Millbrae Tree Protection and Urban Forestry Program 

only protects street trees, removal of these trees would not be inconsistent with local ordinances. 

The Millbrae Municipal Code defines street trees as any woody perennial plant located in any 

street, including a parking strip, having a single main axis or stem, commonly achieving a 

minimum of 10 feet in height, and capable of shaping and pruning to develop a branch-free trunk 

at least 9 feet in height. Therefore, there would be no impact resulting from inconsistencies with 

local ordinances protecting trees at the Millbrae site. 


The City of South San Francisco Tree Preservation Ordinance is the applicable ordinance at the 

common staging area. However, no tree removal would be required in the common staging area. 

Therefore, there would be no impact resulting from inconsistencies with local ordinances 

protecting trees at the common staging area. 


Tree removal that is inconsistent with the applicable local tree preservation ordinances would be 

a potentially significant impact at the South San Francisco and San Bruno North sites. However, 

this potential impact would be reduced to less than significant by Mitigation Measure M-BI-1a: 

General Protection Measures, which would protect the root systems of trees to be retained on 

site by requiring appropriate fencing; and would prevent long-term damage to trees by requiring 

that tree trimming be completed by an arborist. In addition, Mitigation Measure M-BI-4: 

Replacement of Trees to Be Removed, described below, would fulfill the intent of local treepreservation 

ordinances by requiring replanting of trees that are removed for construction of the 

project. Therefore, tree impacts would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation. 





Mitigation Measure M-BI-4: Replacement of Trees to be Removed 

This mitigation measure applies to the South San Francisco and San Bruno North sites 

only, where affected trees meet the parameters of the applicable ordinance outlined in 

the summary table below. The SFPUC will avoid and minimize impacts on ordinanceprotected 

trees by implementing the following measures: 

 

 

 

A tree survey will be conducted prior to construction by a qualified arborist (defined 

as an International Society of Arboriculture certified arborist or consulting arborist 

who is a member of the America Society of Consulting Arborists) or a qualified 

biologist to specifically identify the protected and heritage trees within the project 

footprint. Protected trees and heritage trees are defined in Table 5.14-6 for the City of 

South San Francisco and the City of San Bruno. 

Removal of ordinance-protected trees or work within the dripline of such trees will 

be avoided to the extent feasible during construction. If construction must occur 

within the dripline of a tree, a qualified arborist will determine where the protective 

fencing should be placed in order to protect the tree. 

Where feasible, native trees to be removed that are located within the existing SFPUC 

ROW, shall be replaced according to the SFPUC’s Right of Way Integrated 

Vegetation Management Policy. If it is not feasible to compensate for all native tree 

removal in SFPUC’s ROW in the vicinity of the project, then native tree 

compensation shall occur at a suitable offsite location. 

Table 5.14-6 

Summary of Applicable Tree Ordinances 

City 

Protected Trees 

South San Francisco Any tree with a circumference of 48 inches or more when measured 

54 inches above natural grade; or 

A tree or stand of trees so designated based upon findings that it is 

unique and of importance to the public due to its unusual 

appearance, location, or historical significance; or 

A stand of trees whereby each tree is dependent upon the others for 

survival. 


Any native bay (Umbellularia californica), buckeye (Aesculus species), 

oak (Quercus species), redwood, or pine tree that has a diameter of 

6 inches or more measured at 54 inches above natural grade; 

Any tree or stand of trees designated by resolution of the City 

Council to be of special historical value or of significant community 

benefit; 

A stand of trees, the nature of which makes each dependent on the 

others for survival; or 

Any other tree with a trunk diameter of 10 inches or more, measured 

at 54 inches above natural grade. 

Sources: City of South San Francisco, 2000; City of San Bruno, 2002. 





 

 

For each removed landscape tree that meets ordinance criteria, the SFPUC shall plant 

two 24-inch box size trees or one 36-inch box size replacement tree of similar species. 

If replanting trees on the same site is infeasible, the SFPUC shall find a suitable 

alternative location. 

A qualified biologist or arborist shall conduct post-construction monitoring of 

replacement trees for 5 years. Any replacement trees that fail within the first 5 years 

shall be replaced. The survival period shall be extended, as necessary, until the 

planted trees have survived for a period of 5 years, and show signs that they are 

permanently established. 




conditions, there are no impacts associated with operation of the project. 


Impact C-BI: Project construction could result in a cumulatively considerable contribution 

to cumulative impacts on biological resources. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) 

The geographic scope for cumulative impacts on biological resources encompasses the project 

sites and extends for a small area beyond the sites to the jurisdictional waters and developed or 

previously disturbed habitats in the project area. Because the project would be located entirely 

within urban areas previously disturbed by development and routine operations and 

maintenance activities, and because the sites do not provide wildlife movement corridors, the 

area of potential cumulative impact is relatively limited. 

Adverse Effects on Special-Status Wildlife Species 

Although the areas to be developed by the cumulative projects are also located in urban areas 

that are generally previously disturbed, there remains the potential that these projects, in 

combination with the PPSU project, could result in substantial adverse effects on special-status 

wildlife species during construction activities due to the potential to affect species habitats. 

Several of the cumulative projects, including the Groundwater Storage and Recovery (GSR) 

project and the Harry Tracy Water Treatment Plant (HTWTP) Long-Term Improvement project, 

would be located in areas that support special-status species. These projects, together with the 

PPSU project, could result in significant cumulative impacts to species in the region through loss 

of habitat and/or mortality of species during construction activities. 

As discussed in Impact BI-1, construction of the PPSU project could result in significant impacts 

to several special-status wildlife species that have the potential to occur in the project area 

including the California red-legged frog, San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat, white-tailed kite, 

Mission blue butterfly, western red bat, and pallid bat. For example, the removal of trees at the 

South San Francisco and Millbrae sites would result in a reduction of sources of food, shelter, and 

breeding sites for wildlife species. In addition, construction of the project could result in the 





inadvertent introduction of invasive nonnative plant species that can out-compete native 

vegetation on which special-status wildlife species rely for food, shelter, and breeding. 

However, with implementation of Mitigation Measures M-BI-1a: General Protection Measures; 

M-BI-1b: Worker Training and Awareness Program; M-BI-1c: Prepare and Implement a 

Vegetation Restoration Plan; M-BI-1d: Minimize Disturbance to Nesting Birds and Raptors; 

M-BI-1e: Preconstruction Surveys for Special-Status Bats and Avoidance and Minimization 

Measures; M-BI-1f: Mitigation for the Mission Blue Butterfly; M-BI-1g: Mitigation for San 

Francisco Dusky-Footed Woodrat Middens; M-BI-1h: Mitigation for the California Red-Legged 

Frog; and M-HY-1: Preparation and Implementation of a SWPPP (see Section 5.16, Hydrology and 

Water Quality), PPSU project-construction-related impacts on special-status species would be 

reduced by requiring general protection and avoidance measures, worker training, preconstruction 

surveys and construction monitoring, implementation of erosion control and water quality BMPs 

during construction, and revegetation and restoration of disturbed areas after construction. 

These mitigation measures would reduce the PPSU project’s potential impacts through 

avoidance, restoration, and construction practices to a de minimis level that would not adversely 

combine with the biological impacts of other projects. Therefore, with implementation of 

mitigation, the PPSU project would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to 

significant cumulative impacts on special-status species (less than significant with mitigation). 

Adverse Effects on Coast Live Oak Woodland and Riparian Habitat 

Oak woodlands extend through the PPSU Millbrae site and HTWTP project site. Impacts from 

each of these projects to oak woodlands would be minor and in combination would be limited to 

a small geographic extent (SF Planning, 2011). The oak woodlands in the vicinity of each of the 

cumulative project sites would not be significantly affected by the individual projects. Because 

the two sites are isolated from one another by approximately ½ mile, in an area largely composed 

of urban development, cumulative impacts of the PPSU project with these other projects would 

not result in the loss or conversion of oak woodlands that would have a significant effect on the 

environment. Therefore, cumulative impacts to oak woodland habitats would be less than 

significant. 

Construction of the cumulative projects could result in riparian habitat removal and impacts 

from sediment and polluted runoff. A riparian corridor extends through the HTWTP project site, 

and several GSR sites are located in riparian habitat. Together with the PPSU project, the 

cumulative projects could result in significant impacts to riparian habitats. 

As discussed in Impact BI-2, the proposed project could adversely affect Central Coast riparian 

scrub habitat at the South San Francisco site. Mature willow trees and understory vegetation 

consisting of California and Himalayan blackberry would be removed. While providing food, 

shelter, and breeding sites, riparian trees also provide a canopy over aquatic habitats that harbor 

native species. Although the area of riparian scrub habitat that would be removed at the South 

San Francisco is fairly small, when added to the removal of riparian habitat at other related 

project sites, the impact could be cumulatively significant. 

The PPSU project’s impact on these resources would be reduced to a less-than-significant level 

with the implementation of Mitigation Measures M-BI-1a: General Protection Measures; 





M-BI-1b: Worker Training and Awareness Program; M-BI-1c: Prepare and Implement a 

Vegetation Restoration Plan; M-BI-2a: Minimize Disturbance to Riparian Habitat; and 

M-BI-2b: Supplemental Measures for the Vegetation Restoration Plan. Implementation of these 

mitigation measures would protect riparian habitat by minimizing the overall area of 

construction disturbance and avoiding sensitive habitats, providing a worker training and 

awareness program, and establishing protocols and performance standards for revegetation and 

restoration of disturbed areas. With implementation of these mitigation measures that require 

restoration of the riparian habitat, the PPSU project’s impacts would be reduced to de minimis 

levels, and the project would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant 

cumulative impacts on riparian habitat (less than significant with mitigation). 

Adverse Effects on Jurisdictional Waters 

Construction of the PPSU project in combination with the cumulative projects has the potential to 

adversely affect jurisdictional waters, including waters of the U.S. and waters of the State. Both 

the GSR and HTWTP projects would adversely impact jurisdictional waters. Potential impacts 

could be direct, through modification of creeks, culverts, and indirect, through polluted 

stormwater runoff during construction. These cumulative impacts could be significant to 

jurisdictional waters. 

As discussed in Impact BI-3, construction of the proposed project could degrade water quality 

through direct modification of the creek culvert at the Colma site, or through other temporary 

impacts to concrete lined v-ditches at the Colma, San Bruno South, and Millbrae sites. Degraded 

water quality often has negative impacts on native aquatic life. Suspended sediment in water can 

clog the gills of fish and amphibians, including the California red-legged frog. The release of 

hazardous materials and other construction-related toxins into aquatic environments can result in 

the death or impairment of wildlife species when they ingest it. The PPSU project’s contribution 

to degraded water quality could be cumulatively considerable when added to impacts to 

jurisdictional waters from other SFPUC projects. 

However, the PPSU project’s impact on jurisdictional waters would be reduced to a less-thansignificant 

level with implementation of Mitigation Measure M-BI-3: Avoidance and Protection 

Measures for Jurisdictional Water Bodies, as well as M-BI-1a: General Protection Measures, 

M-BI-1b: Worker Training and Awareness Program; and M-HY-1a: Preparation and 

Implementation of a SWPPP (see Section 5.16, Hydrology and Water Quality). These measures 

would address impacts on jurisdictional waters and aquatic resources by requiring staging areas 

to be sited at least 100 feet from riparian areas where feasible, requiring worker training 

regarding the resources present and general impact avoidance, requiring temporary fencing 

around the construction zone, and requiring preparation and implementation of a SWPPP that 

prescribes BMPs to protect water quality in receiving water bodies during construction activities. 

With implementation of these mitigation measures that would avoid and protect the 

jurisdictional waters, the PPSU project’s impacts would be reduced to de minimis levels, and 

would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative impacts on jurisdictional 

waters (less than significant with mitigation). 





Inconsistencies with Local Ordinances Protecting Biological Resources 

Construction of the cumulative projects would result in the removal of trees protected by local 

ordinances, resulting in inconsistencies with local tree protection ordinances at the South San 

Francisco and San Bruno North sites. Together with tree removal for several other cumulative 

projects, including the GSR, HTWTP, and the 599 Cedar Avenue project, impacts from 

inconsistencies with local tree protection ordinances could result in cumulatively significant 

impacts. However, the PPSU project, as discussed in Impact BI-4, implementation of Mitigation 

Measures M-BI-1a: General Protection Measures and M-BI-4: Replacement of Trees to be 

Removed would protect the root systems of trees to be retained on site by requiring appropriate 

fencing; prevent long-term damage to trees by requiring that tree trimming is completed by an 

arborist; and fulfill the intent of local tree-preservation ordinances by requiring replanting of 

trees that are removed for construction of the project. Therefore, potential tree impacts from the 

PPSU project would be reduced to de minimis levels, so that the project would not have a 

cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative impacts (less than significant with 

mitigation). 


Abrams, L. R., 1923–1960. Illustrated Flora of the Pacific States, Washington, Oregon and California, 

Vol. 4 by L. R. Abrams and R. Ferris. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California. 4 vols. 

Arnold, R. A., 1983. Ecological Studies of Six Endangered Butterflies Island Biogeography, Patch 

dynamics, and design of habitat preserves. Pp. 1-161. University of California Publications in 

Entomology 99. 

Beier, P., and S. Loe, 1992. A checklist for evaluating impacts to wildlife movement corridors. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin, 20:434 – 440. 

BioMaAS (BioMaAS, Inc.) and URS (URS Corporation), 2012. Rare Plant Survey Report for the 

Peninsula Pipelines Seismic Upgrade Project. Prepared for San Francisco Public Utilities 

Commission and San Francisco Planning Department, Environmental Planning Division. June. 

BioMaAS (BioMaAS, Inc.) and URS (URS Corporation), 2013. Revised Final Wetlands Delineation 

and Jurisdictional Determination of Waters of the United States Report for the Peninsula 

Pipelines Seismic Upgrade Project. Prepared for San Francisco Public Utilities Commission and 

San Francisco Planning Department, Environmental Planning Division. January. 

Brylski, P., 2005. Dusky-Footed Woodrat Neotoma fuscipes. In California Wildlife Habitat 

Relationships System. California Interagency Wildlife Task Group Database Version 8.1, CDFG. 

Available online at nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=2523&inline=1. Accessed 

June 13, 2011. 

Cal-IPC (California Invasive Plant Council), 2006. Invasive Plant Inventory. Online: calipc.org/ip/inventory/index.php#inventory. 

Accessed June 23, 2012. 

Cal-IPC, 2012. Preventing the Spread of Invasive Plants: Best Management Practices for Land 

Managers (3rd ed.). Cal-IPC Publication. California Invasive Plant Council, Berkeley, CA. 





CalWeedMapper, 2012. California Invasive Plant Mapper. CalWeedMapper. Available online at: 

calweedmapper.calflora.org/maps. Accessed June 23. 

CDFG (California Department of Fish and Game), 2003. List of California Terrestrial Natural 

Communities Recognized by the California Natural Diversity Database. The Vegetation 

Classification and Mapping Program, Wildlife and Habitat Data Analysis Branch. September. 

CDFG (California Department of Fish and Game), 2009. Guidelines for Assessing the Effects of 

Proposed Developments on Rare and Endangered Plants and Plant Communities. The Resources 

Agency. Sacramento. November 24. 

CDFG (California Department of Fish and Game), 2010. Hierarchical List of Natural 

Communities with Holland Types. September. Available online at: dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/ 

vegcamp/natural_comm_list.asp. Accessed September 23, 2011. 

CDFG (California Department of Fish and Game), 2011a. Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, 

and Lichens List. Natural Diversity Database. April. 

CDFG (California Department of Fish and Game), 2011b. Fully Protected Animals. Available 

online at: dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/nongame/t_e_spp/fully_pro.html. Accessed June 15, 2011. 

CDFG (California Department of Fish and Game), 2011c. Non-game wildlife program. Available 

on line at: dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/nongame/ssc. Accessed June 13, 2011. 

CDFG (California Department of Fish and Game), 2011d. Vegetation Classification and Mapping 

Program. Available on line at: dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/vegcamp/. Accessed September 23, 2011. 

City of Millbrae, 2011. City of Millbrae Municipal Code, Chapter 8.60, Tree Protection and Urban 

Forestry Program. 

City of San Bruno, 2002. City of San Bruno Municipal Code, Chapter 8.24, Street Trees and Other 

Plantings; and Chapter 8.25, Heritage Trees. 

City of South San Francisco, 2000. South San Francisco Municipal Code, Chapter 13.28, Street 

Trees; and Chapter 13.30, Tree Preservation. Tree Preservation Ordinance No. 1271-2000. 

CNDDB (California Natural Diversity Database), 2011. RareFind 3. Computer printout for 

special-status species within San Francisco North, San Francisco South, Hunters Point, Montara 

Mountain, San Mateo, Redwood Point, Woodside, and Half Moon Bay USGS 7.5-minute 

quadrangles. California Natural Heritage Division, CDFG, Sacramento, CA. 

CNPS (California Native Plant Society), 2001. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of 

California (sixth edition). Rare Plant Scientific Advisory Committee, David P. Tibor, Convening 

Editor. Sacramento, California. 388 pp. 

CNPS (California Native Plant Society), 2010. Online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (8th 

edition). Database printout version 15.38b for the Montara Mountain, San Mateo, San Francisco 

South, Hunter’s Point, Half Moon Bay, and Woodside USGS 7.5-minute quadrangles. December 8. 





CRA (California Resource Agency), 2001. The Oak Woodlands Conservation Act of 2001 Program 

Application and Guidelines. 

CWHR (California Wildlife Habitat Relationships), 2011. California Wildlife Habitat 

Relationships. Available online at: dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cwhr/. Accessed June 13, 2011. 

Environmental Laboratory, 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report 

Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss. January. 100 pp. 

Fahrig, L., 2002. Effect of habitat fragmentation on the extinction threshold: a synthesis. 

Ecological Applications 12(2), pp. 346-353. 

Fischer, J., and D. B. Lindenmayer, 2007. Landscape modification and habitat fragmentation: a 

synthesis. Global Ecology and Biogeography 16, pp. 265-280. 

Goodrich, J., and S. Buskirk, 1995. Control of Abundant Native Vertebrates for conservation of 

endangered species. Conservation Biology, 9 p 1357-1364. 

Hall, E. U., 1981. The Mammals of North America. New York: Wiley. Vol. 2. pp. 767. 

Harris, J., 2005. Pallid Bat Antrozous pallidus. In California Wildlife Habitat Relationships 

System. California Interagency Wildlife Task Group Database Version 8.1, CDFG. Available 

online at: nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=2349&inline=1. Accessed June 13, 2011. 

Hickman, J. C., 1993. The Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California. University of California 

Press, Berkeley, California. 1400 pp. 

Holland, R., 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. 

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), The Resources Agency. 156 pp. 

Holland, V. L., and D. J. Keil, 1995. California Vegetation. Kendall/Publishing Company, 

Dubuque, Iowa. pp. 516. 

Kie, J. G., 2005. Annual Grassland. In California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System. CDFG. 

Available online at: dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cwhr/pdfs/PGS.pdf. Accessed June 12, 2011. 

Mayer, K., and W. Laudenslayer Jr. (eds.), 1988. A Guide to Wildlife Habitats of California. 

CDFG. Wildlife Habitat Relationships systems. Available online at: dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cwhr/ 

wildlife_habitats.asp. Accessed June 11, 2011. 

McBride, J. R., and C. Reid, 2008. Urban Vegetation. In California Wildlife Habitat Relationships 

Systems. Life History Accounts and Range Maps. CDFG. Available online at: 

dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cwhr/pdfs/URB.pdf. Accessed on June 11, 2011. 

Pearson, D. C., 1988. Eucalyptus. In California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System. CDFG. 

Available online at: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cwhr/pdfs/EUC.pdf. Accessed April 18, 2011. 

Pierson, E. D. and W. E. Rainey, 1998a. Red bat (Lasiurus blossevillii). In Terrestrial Mammal 

Species of Special Concern in California (B.C. Bolster, Ed.). p. 33-34. Available online at: 

dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/nongame/ssc/docs/mammal/species/11.pdf. Accessed June 11, 2011. 





Pierson, E. D. and W. E. Rainey, 1998b. Pallid Bat. In Terrestrial Mammal Species of Special 

Concern in California (B.C. Bolster, Ed.). pp. 33-34. Available online at: dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/ 

nongame/ssc/docs/mammal/species/08.pdf. Accessed June 11, 2011. 

Polite, C., 2005. White-tailed kite. In California Wildlife Habitat Relationships Systems. Life 

History Accounts and Range Maps. CDFG. Available online at: dfg.ca.gov/.?=&=1. Accessed 

June 11, 2011. 

Reed, P. B., 1988. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands; California (Region 0). 

National Wetlands Inventory, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Biological Report 88(26.10). 

RWQCB (Regional Water Quality Control Board), 2006. Appendix I. Invasive Non-Native Species 

to Avoid in the San Francisco Bay Region. 

RWQCB (Regional Water Quality Control Board), 2010. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) 

for the San Francisco Bay Region. December 31. 

RWQCB (Regional Water Quality Control Board), 2011. Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control 

Act (Cal. Water Quality Control, Division 7), January. 

San Mateo County, 1977. Regulation of the Removal and Trimming of Heritage Trees on Public 

and Private Property. Ordinance No. 2427. 

San Mateo County, 1990. The Significant Tree Ordinance of San Mateo County, Part Three of 

Division VIII of the San Mateo County Ordinance Code. Ordinance No. 3229. 

Sawyer, J., and T. Keeler-Wolf, 1995. A Manual of California Vegetation. CNPS Sacramento. 

471 pp. 

Sawyer, J., T. Keeler-Wolf, and J. Evens, 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation (Second 

edition), CNPS Sacramento. 1,300 pp. 




SF Planning (City and County of San Francisco, San Francisco Planning Department), 2011. Harry 

Tracy Water Treatment Plant Long-Term Improvements Project, Draft EIR. SCH No. 2008052106. 

March. 



Shapiro, A. M., and T. D. Manolis, 2007. Field Guide to Butterflies of the San Francisco Bay and 

Sacramento Valley Regions. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, California, 

302 pp. 

Shuford, W. D., and T. Gardali (Eds.), 2008. California Bird Species of Special Concern; a ranked 

assessment of species, subspecies and distinct populations of birds of immediate concern in 

California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, and California 





Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento. Available online from dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/ 

nongame/ssc/birds.html. Accessed June 13, 2011. 

Thomas, J. H., 1961. Flora of the Santa Cruz Mountains of California. Stanford University Press. 

434 pp. 

Town of Colma, 2010. Colma Municipal Code, Chapter Five: Planning, Zoning, Use, and 

Development of Land and Improvements, Subchapter 5.06: Tree Cutting and Removal. March 2010. 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), 1976. Determination that Six Species of Butterflies are 

Endangered Species; 41 FR 22041 22044 (Lotis blue, Lycaeides argyrognomon lotis; El Segundo blue, 

Shijimiaeoides battoides allyni; Smith’s blue, Shijimiaeoides enoptes smithi; Mission blue, Icaricia 

icarioides missionensis; San Bruno elfin, Callophrys mossi bayensis; Lange’s metalmark, Apodemia 

mormo langei). Final rule. Federal Register, June 1, 1976. Vol. 41: pp. 22041-22044. Available online 

at: ecos.fws.gov/docs/federal_register/fr99.pdf. Accessed June 11, 2011. 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), 1984. Recovery Plan for San Bruno Elfin and Mission 

Blue Butterflies. 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), 1996a. Endangered and Threatened Plant and Animal 

Taxa; Proposed Rule. 50 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 17. February 28. 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), 1996b. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; 

determination of threatened status for the California red-legged frog. Final rule. Federal Register, 

Vol. 61 No. 101: 25813-25833. May 23, 1996. 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), 2002. Recovery Plan for the California Red-Legged Frog 

(Rana aurora draytonii). Region 1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Office, Portland, Oregon. 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), 2005. Revised guidance on site assessments and field 

surveys for the California Red-Legged Frog. Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office. 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), 2010. San Bruno Elfin Butterfly (Callophrys mossii 

bayensis) and Mission Blue Butterfly (Icaricia icarioides missionensis). 5-Year Review: Summary 

Review and Evaluation. Available online at: fws.gov.ecos/ajax/docs/five_year_review/ 

doc3216.pdf. Accessed June 11, 2011. 




5.15 Geology and Soils 

This section describes existing geologic and soils conditions in the vicinity of the proposed 

Peninsula Pipelines Seismic Upgrade (PPSU) project as well as the site vicinity’s seismicity and 

evaluates the potential impacts of the proposed project. Mitigation measures to avoid or reduce 



This section was prepared based on previous studies pertaining to the project vicinity and 

information was tailored to the PPSU site-specific conditions. Regional information is excerpted 

from the Crystal Springs/San Andreas Transmission Upgrade Project, Final Environmental 

Impact Report (SF Planning, 2010) and site-specific geology and information pertaining to the 

Serra Fault is based on the Fault Rupture Hazard Assessment, Final Report (FWLA, 2011). 

5.15.1.1 Regional Geology 

The study area is located on the San Francisco Peninsula within the Coast Ranges geomorphic 

province, which extends from the Transverse Ranges in Santa Barbara County northward beyond 

the Oregon border (CGS, 2002a). The region consists of northwest-trending mountain ranges and 

parallel elongated valleys. Most of the valleys are associated with differential erosion along faults 

that are generally oriented parallel to the San Andreas Fault. In the Coast Ranges, older, 

consolidated rocks are characteristically exposed in the mountains and are buried beneath 

younger, unconsolidated alluvial sediments in the valleys. In the coastal lowlands adjacent to San 

Francisco Bay, these younger sediments commonly interfinger with marine deposits (Norris and 

Webb, 1990; Clifton and Leithold, 1991). The major geographic features in the study area include 

San Francisco Bay and the Diablo Range to the east and north, the Santa Cruz Mountains to the 

south and west, and the Santa Clara Valley to the south and east. 

The principal basement rock on the San Francisco Peninsula is the Franciscan Complex, which 

commonly consists of greenstone, sandstone, serpentinite, and mélange, a mixture of lithologies 

typically in a sheared, clay-rich matrix. On the San Francisco Peninsula, the Franciscan Complex 

is locally overlain by Tertiary, Quaternary, and Holocene marine and nonmarine sedimentary 

deposits of variable degrees of cementation or consolidation. In the study area, these are assigned 

to the Santa Clara Formation and Merced Formation (Wagner et al., 1990). Unconsolidated 

geological materials encountered in the study area include artificial fill, colluvium, alluvium, 

stream channel deposits, and alluvial fans. 

The study area is within a seismically active region near the boundary between two major 

tectonic plates: the Pacific Plate to the southwest and the North American Plate to the northeast. 

Within California, this plate boundary begins north of the Gulf of California near the Mexican 

border and traverses much of the state before terminating off the coast of Humboldt County. 

At the Earth’s surface, motion between the two plates within the study area is accommodated not 

only on the San Andreas Fault, but also on a number of subsidiary faults across a 50-mile-wide 




5.15 Geology 

zone that runs northeast from the San Gregorio Fault (which is southwest of the study area) to 

faults along the western margin of the Central Valley. 

The major active faults in the study area comprise a complex system of right-lateral, strike-slip 

faults known as the San Andreas Fault system. The principal active fault in the immediate project 

vicinity is the San Andreas Fault. The San Andreas Fault zone is topographically expressed in the 

valley in which the Crystal Springs and San Andreas reservoirs lie. Other substantial faults 

within the San Andreas Fault system are the San Gregorio Fault, approximately 7 miles to the 

southwest; the Hayward Fault, approximately 18 miles to the northeast; and the Calaveras Fault, 

approximately 26 miles to the northeast. Other more distant active faults in the region include the 

Concord-Green Valley Fault, approximately 31 miles to the northeast, and the Greenville Fault, 

approximately 41 miles to the northeast. Earthquakes occurring along these and other faults are 

capable of generating strong groundshaking at the project sites. Faults in the area that represent 

substantial potential seismic sources are listed in Table 5.15-1. Future earthquakes along these 

structures could be associated with localized liquefaction episodes. 

Although future earthquakes could occur anywhere along the faults listed in Table 5.15-1, only 

earthquakes of magnitude (M) 6.0 or greater are likely to be associated with surface fault rupture 

and offset in the study area; faults within the study area all have strike-slip displacement 

(CDMG, 1996). Co-seismic movement on nonseismogenic faults (e.g., the Serra Fault) may result 

from large earthquakes on nearby active faults. The most recent prediction has an approximately 

20 percent probability of a rupture-producing earthquake on the northern San Andreas Fault 

within the next 30 years (USGS and CGS, 2008). 

5.15.1.2 Study Area Geology 

An overview of the geologic units in the study area is shown on Figure 5.15-1, and geologic 

information for each site is shown on Figures 5.15-2 through 5.15-6. Geologic deposits in and 

around the study area are primarily composed of four units: Cretaceous and Jurassic Franciscan 

Complex basement rock, Pleistocene and Pliocene Merced Formation, Late Pleistocene Colma 

Formation, and other late Quaternary deposits (Pampeyan, 1994; Brabb et al., 1998; FWLA, 2011). 

Historic artificial fill is also common in the study area. 

The Franciscan Complex rock found along the Serra Fault zone in and south of the study area 

principally consists of sheared rock and clay (mélange) with tectonic inclusions of greywacke, 

chert, and greenstone, and minor serpentinite (Pampeyan, 1994). 

The Merced Formation unconformably overlies or is in fault contact with Franciscan Complex 

rocks within the study area, including at the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) 

pipeline fault crossings. It principally consists of weakly lithified to well-cemented, thinly bedded 

to massive sandstone and siltstone, with minor claystone and conglomerate with shell hash, 

deposited in shallow marine to estuarine and nonmarine coastal environments (FWLA, 2011). 

The age of the Merced Formation is uncertain, but likely is between about 1.8 million years old 

and about 400,000 years old (FWLA, 2011), with the uppermost beds along the coast being 

younger than ~400,000 years (Kennedy, 2002). Clean to silty, fine-grained, poorly consolidated 

micaceous sands are characteristic of the upper Merced deposits, whereas nonmicaceous shallow 

marine sands and silts are characteristic of the lower Merced. Tectonic models imply original 




5.15 Geology 

Table 5.15-1 

Significant Active and Potentially Active Faults 

Fault Name 

Estimated 

Maximum 

Earthquake 

Magnitude 1,2 

Approximate 

Fault Segment 

Length 

(Miles) 2 

Average 

Recurrence 

Interval 

(Years) 3 

Fault Type, 

Dip Direction 2 

Approximate 

Slip Rate 

(mm/yr) 2,4 


(Peninsula) 


(North Coast South) 

San Gregorio 

(North) 

M7.2 53 246 Right-lateral strikeslip, 

90º 


90º 


90º 

17 

24 

7 

Monte Vista- 

Shannon 

M6.7 28 2,400 Blind thrust, 90º west 0.4 

Hayward 

(Northern) 

Hayward 

(Southern) 

Calaveras 

(Northern) 

Calaveras 

(Central) 

Concord-Green 

Valley 


90º 


90º 


90º 


90º 


90º 

9 

9 

6 

15 

6 

Mount Diablo M6.6 15 389 Reverse thrust, 38º 

northeast 

2 

Greenville 

(North) 

Greenville 

(South) 


90º 


90º 

2 

9 

Source: SF Planning, 2010. 

Notes: 

1 Estimated Maximum Earthquake Magnitude: the maximum earthquake that appears capable of occurring under the 

presently known tectonic framework, using the Richter scale. M = earthquake magnitude. 

2 Fault parameters from CDMG, 1996; CGS, 2002b; USGS, 2003; and USGS and CGS, 2008. 

3 Recurrence intervals from USGS, 2003, and USGS and CGS, 2008. 

4 mm/yr = millimeters per year. 



! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

af 

! ! 

Qcl 

Qhb 

COLMA SITE 

fs 

af 

! ! ! ! ! 

KJs 

fsr 

Qcl 

! ! ! ! ! 

! ! ! 

Qcl 

! ! ! 

Qhaf 

QTm 

Qc 

af 

af 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

fs 

Qhaf 


Qcl 

Qhasc 

Qhaf 


! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

fsr 

Qc 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

Qcl 

Qc 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

Qc 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

! ! ! ! ! ! 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

Qcl 

KJs 

Qcl 

fsr fsr af 

! ! ! 

fsr Qc 

fs 

Qcl 

! ! 

af 

Qhfp 

af 

fs 

af 

fs 

fg 

Qc 

Qhaf 

af 

Qcl 

af 

fs 

fg 

Qcl 

fs 

fs 

! ! ! ! 

Qhasc 

! ! ! ! ! ! 

vsa/ed U:\GIS\SFPUC_Peninsula_Pipeline\Projects\EIR\ERO_DEIR\Fig5_15_1_geology_overview.mxd 2/12/2013 12:29:00 PM 

fs 

fs 

Geologic Units 

af - Artificial fill (Historic) 

Qhasc - Artificial stream 

channels (Historic) 

Qcl - Colluvium (Holocene) 

Qhaf - Alluvial fan and fluvial 

deposits (Holocene) 

Qhbm - Bay Mud (Holocene) 

Qhl - Natural levee deposits 

(Holocene) 

Qhsc - Stream channel 

deposits (Holocene) 

Qyd - Younger alluvial fan deposits 

(Holocene) 

Qhfp - Floodplain Deposits 

Qc - Colma Formation (Pleistocene) 

Qtm - Merced Formation (lower 

Pleistocene and upper Pliocene) 

KJfm - Franciscan Complex Mélange 

KJs - Unnamed Sandstone 

(Cretaceous or Jurassic) 

fg - Greenstone 

fs - Sandstone 

fsr - Sheared rock (Mélange) 

fs 

Faults 

Project Site 

Certain 

Extent of Additional Surveys 

$ 

Approximate 

Fugro William Letis & Associates Inc. 

! !! !! 

Concealed 


1906 surface break 

Other Quaternary fault 

0 2,000 4,000 

fg 

fs 

fs 

fg 

af 

fg 

fs 

S E R RA FA U LT 

fg 

af 

af 

! ! ! 

! ! 

! !! 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

af 

QTm 

S A N A N D R E A S F A U LT 



KJfm 

! ! ! 

S A N A N D R E A S L A K E 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

fsr 

fg 

! ! ! 

af 

! ! 

QTm 

! ! ! !! 

Qhl 

Qhl 

MILLBRAE SITE 

QTm 

Qc 

QTm 

QTm 

fsr 

fsr 

Qhl 

Qc 

! ! ! 

af 

! ! ! ! ! ! 

Qc 

af 

! ! 

af 

Qhl 

Qc 

GEOLOGY 

OVERVIEW 




Feet 

FIGURE 5.15-1 

Sources: Geology: Overview, San Bruno Sites, and Millbrae sites-USGS Open-File 98-137 (Brabb, Graymer, Jones), 1998. Colma, South San Francisco sites- USGS Open-File 98-354 (Bonilla),1998. 

Additional geologic features surveyed: Colma and South San Francisco sites, Geotechnical Consultants, 2011. San Bruno and Millbrae sites, Fugro William Lettis & Associates, Inc., January 2011. 

Faults, digitized from maps included in Fault Rupture Hazard Assessment, Fugro William Lettis & Associates, Inc., January 2011.

Note: GTC modified the base USGS data in 

accordance with site-specific geotechnical 

surveys for the project. Geologic unit boundaries 

do not coincide precisely with the base USGS 

data at the edge of the surveyed area due to 

the different scales and methods by which the new 

data were surveyed. 

Ql 



Qc 


Qsr 

Qsr 


Center 

COLLINS AVE 

Qsr 

Kohl's 


Qal 

Qal 



vsa/ed U:\GIS\SFPUC_Peninsula_Pipeline\Projects\EIR\ADEIR2\Fig5_15_2_geology_Colma.mxd 10/4/2012 4:50:07 PM 


Cemetery 


Ql - Landslide deposits (Holocene) 

Qal - Alluvium (Holocene) 










Qc 

Qsr - Slope debris and ravine fill (Pleistocene) 

$ 

0 100 200 

Feet 

Qc 



GEOLOGY 

COLMA SITE 




Source:SFPUC Water Transmission line, October 2011; Aerial Imagery, Bing Imagery 2009; Geology: USGS Open-File 98-354 (Bonilla),1998; modified by URS with data from Geotechnical Consultants, Inc, 2011. 

FIGURE 5.15-2

Note: GTC modified the base USGS data in 

accordance with site-specific geotechnical 

surveys for the project. Geologic unit boundaries 

do not coincide precisely with the base USGS 

data at the edge of the surveyed area due to 

the different scales and methods by which the new 

data were surveyed. 

Qc 

Qsr 



SITE 

WEST ORANGE 

AVE 

ALTA LOMA DR 

ARROYO DR 

Qc 


ARROYO DR 



OVERVIEW 

Qsr 

Qsr 

CAMARITAS AVE 



Qsr 

California 

Golf Club of 


Qal 

Qal 

Qc 

Pacific 

Supermarket 


vsa/ed U:\GIS\SFPUC_Peninsula_Pipeline\Projects\EIR\ADEIR2\Fig5_15_3_geology_SSF.mxd 10/4/2012 4:56:33 PM 





Qal - Alluvium (Holocene) 


Qsr - Slope debris and ravine fill (Pleistocene) 




Boring Pit 






$ 

0 75 150 

Feet 

Qc 

KNOLL CIR 

FAIRWAY DR 

Westborough 


Living 

Qal 


Qc 


0 100 200 

Feet 

GEOLOGY 





Source:SFPUC Water Transmission line, October 2011; Aerial Imagery, Bing Imagery 2009; Geology: USGS Open-File 98-354 (Bonilla), 1998; modified by URS with data from Geotechnical Consultants, Inc, 2011 

FIGURE 5.15-3


Q 



af 


CEDARWOOD CT 

§¨¦ 280 

CEDAR AVE 

af 

vsa/ed U:\GIS\SFPUC_Peninsula_Pipeline\Projects\EIR\ERO_DEIR\Fig5_15_4_geology_SanBrunoNorth.mxd 2/7/2013 11:22:21 AM 


CRESTMOOR DR 



fs 

af 


Access Portal 




Qc 


Qc - Colma Formation 

(Pleistocene) 


0 75 150 

Feet 

$ 

FIGURE 

PEPPER DR 

Qc 

GEOLOGY 





5.15-4 

Source: SFPUC Water Transmission line, October 2011; Aerial Imagery, Bing Imagery 2009; 

Geology: USGS Open-File 98-137 (Brabb, Graymer, Jones), 1998 (modified by URS, 2011)

! ! ! 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

Shelter Creek 

Condominiums 

af 

WHITMAN WAY 

Shelter Creek 

Condominiums 


af 

§¨¦ 280 

Qc 

HAWTHORNE AVE 

JENEVEIN AVE 

QTm 

ROSEWOOD DR 

GLENBROOK LN 

KJfm 

af 


COURTLAND DR 

M A I N 

S E R R A 

af 

F A U L T 

af 

vsa/ed U:\GIS\SFPUC_Peninsula_Pipeline\Projects\EIR\ADEIR2\Fig5_15_5_geology_SanBrunoSouth.mxd 10/4/2012 5:07:22 PM 



af 


Parking Lot 


Concealed Project Components 

!!!!! Construction Zone 









KJfm - Franciscan Complex 

Mélange 

Faults 

Approximate 

0 100 200 

Feet 



Church 

Parking Lot 

QTm 



Source: SF PUC Water Transmission line, October 2011; Aerial Imagery, Bing Imagery 2009; Geology, USGS Open-File 98-137 (Brabb, Graymer, Jones), 1998 (modified by URS, 2011); 

Faults, digitized from maps included in Fault Rupture Hazard Assessment, Fugro William Lettis & Associates, Inc., January 2011. 

$ 

FIGURE 

af 

GEOLOGY 





5.15-5


County Park 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

! ! ! 

QTm 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

! ! ! ! ! ! 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

! ! ! 

af 

LOMITA AVE 

TERRACE DR 

af 

fs 

Qc 


BAYVIEW AVE 

FAIRVIEW 

ROBIN LN 

BROOKSIDE LN 

PL 



af 

Qhl 

RIDGEWOOD DR 

MAIN SI E R RA FAULT 

ELMWOOD DR 

GLENWOOD DR 

QTm 

Glen Oaks/ 

Millbrae Montessori 

School 

CAPUCHINO 

DR 

OAKWOOD DR 

af 

af 

HACIENDA WAY 

U N N A M E D 

F A U L T 

vsa/ed U:\GIS\SFPUC_Peninsula_Pipeline\Projects\EIR\SC_DEIR\Fig5_15_6_geology_Millbrae.mxd 1/8/2013 5:45:29 PM 

af 

! ! ! 


af 


Meadowsaf Elementary - Artificial fill (Historic) 

School 

Qhl - Natural levee deposits 

(Holocene) 

af 




fsr 





af 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

Access Route 





MOSSWOOD LN 

Faults 

BANBURY LN 

Certain 

af 

Approximate 

!!!!! Concealed 

0 200 400 

Feet 

$ 

LARKSPUR DR 

Source: SFPUC Water Transmission line, October 2011; Aerial Imagery, NAIP Imagery Summer 2010; Geology, USGS Open-File 98-137 (Brabb, Graymer, Jones), 1998 

(modified by URS, 2011); Faults, digitized from maps included in Fault Rupture Hazard Assessment, Fugro William Lettis & Associates, Inc., January 2011. 

QTm 

GEOLOGY 

MILLBRAE SITE 




FIGURE 5.15-6


5.15 Geology 

deposition in the southern part of an ancestral pull-apart basin, and subsequent migration of the 

basin, and with the Merced Formation becoming younger to the north (FWLA, 2011). 

The Colma Formation overlies Merced Formation strata at and near the coast, and has a mapped 

outcrop extent similar to the Merced Formation (Pampeyan, 1994; Brabb et al., 1998). The Colma 

Formation, as described at and near the coast, consists of poorly consolidated to unconsolidated 

sand and silt, and represents a variety of mostly nonmarine environments, including nearshore, 

foreshore, and backshore deposits. The age of the Colma Formation is latest Pleistocene, between 

about 130,000 and 11,000 years old (FWLA, 2011; Kennedy, 2002). Inland from the coast, 

however, the Colma Formation is poorly characterized, and at its southern mapped extent 

appears to be laterally continuous with deposits characterized as “older alluvium” (Brabb et al., 

1998). 

The other late Quaternary deposits primarily consist of recent alluvium, slope wash/fill, and 

artificial fill. Recent alluvium (Qal) deposits in the study area consist of unconsolidated mixtures 

of sands, silts, clays, and gravels found along stream channels. Slope wash/fill/(Qsr) consists of 

unconsolidated to moderately consolidated sands, silts, clays, and rock fragments accumulated 

by downslope movement of weathered rock debris and soil (GTC, 2011b). Artificial fill is 

common in the study area, and likely was used locally to infill ravines in order to flatten the 

topography to allow development activities. Artificial fill in the study area consists of various 

combinations of recent poorly- to well-compacted gravel, sand, silt, and rock fragments (GTC, 

2011b). 

Local geologic units for each of the five sites are presented on Figures 5.15-2 through 5.15-6 and 

consist of the following: 

 

 

 

 

 

The Colma site (Figure 5.15-2) is underlain by about 600 lineal feet of Quaternary alluvium 

and a short length of slope debris/fill, flanked by sediments of the Colma Formation. 

The South San Francisco site (Figure 5.15-3) is similarly underlain by a short length of 

Quaternary alluvium (about 100 to 200 lineal feet), flanked by two bodies of slope debris/fill 

and sediments of the Colma Formation at both ends of the project site. 

The San Bruno North site (Figure 5.15-4) is predominantly underlain by Colma Formation, 

with some artificial fill to the north along San Bruno Avenue. 

The San Bruno South site (Figure 5.15-5) spans the trace of the Serra Fault, and is underlain 

predominantly by sediments of the Merced Formation. 

The Millbrae site (Figure 5.15-6) project site is underlain by the Merced Formation. It also 

spans the main track of the Serra Fault. A portion of the access route requiring upgrade is 

underlain by the Colma Formation. 

The common staging area (Figure 5.15-3) is underlain predominantly by the Colma Formation. A 

several-foot-thick layer of artificial fill consisting of paving and granular base materials underlain 

by silty sand, silt, and sandy clay blankets the Colma Formation. A layer of mixed gravel was 

also encountered in a number of historical borings in the area (SF Planning, 2008). 




5.15 Geology 

The tectonic setting of the upper San Francisco Peninsula is dominated by the San Andreas Fault, 

the primary structure in the broad transform boundary that accommodates right-lateral relative 

motion between the Pacific and North America tectonic plates. According to the most recent 

earthquake hazard model conducted by the 2007 Working Group on California Earthquake 

Probabilities, there is about a 10 percent chance of a major earthquake on the peninsula segment 

of the San Andreas Fault by the year 2038 (GTC, 2011c). The Working Group on California 

Earthquake Probabilities model considers the most likely rupture scenario for the northern San 

Andreas near the pipeline crossings of the Serra Fault and other project components to be an 

earthquake similar to the 1906 moment magnitude 7.9 earthquake. 

The Serra Fault accommodates a component of transpression (a combination of fault-parallel and 

contractional fault-normal movement) in the San Andreas Fault system, and is the northernmost 

structure in the foothills fold belt (Kennedy and Hitchcock, 2004), a set of faults and folds located 

east of the San Andreas Fault at the boundary between the hills and the Santa Clara Valley and 

San Francisco Bay margin. Onshore, the Serra Fault is located between about Hillsborough in the 

southeast to Fort Funston in southwestern San Francisco in the northwest (Pampeyan, 1994; 

Graymer et al., 2006; FWLA, 2011; GTC, 2011a). The Serra Fault dips southwest and probably 

intersects the San Andreas Fault in the shallow crust. 

Evidence for Holocene activity of the Serra Fault comes from at least three locations. Near Fort 

Funston, Kennedy (Kennedy, 2002) documented back-tilted peat beds and channel deposits that 

yielded mid-Holocene radiocarbon dates. The back-tilting was attributed to active folding above 

a blind Serra Fault. In San Bruno, at Junipero Serra County Park, a trench exposure across the 

main strand revealed evidence for multiple episodes of deformation in the late Quaternary, 

including a most recent episode in the late Holocene (Hengesh et al., 2004; FWLA, 2011). A 

possible third location comes from trench exposures in Millbrae, where ENGEO, Inc. interpreted 

a Holocene surface faulting event on a shorter, secondary trace of the Serra Fault based on soil 

stratigraphy (FWLA, 2011). Based on these data, the Serra Fault is considered an active fault. 

Because of its probable shallow intersection depth with the San Andreas Fault, the Serra Fault is 

considered unlikely to generate its own moderate to large earthquakes, although this has not 

been disproven. Instead, a commonly accepted view is that the Serra Fault is capable of 

secondary surface-fault rupture during large earthquakes on the San Andreas Fault. 

The main Serra Fault defines the primary fault rupture hazard to the pipelines in the study area. 

This fault zone is marked by the presence of Franciscan mélange (or thick fault gouge derived 

from mélange) that juxtaposes distinct bodies of friable to well-cemented sandstone, siltstone, 

and minor conglomerate of the Merced Formation. The best characterization of the fault zone 

comes from a paleoseismic trench completed at Junipero Serra County Park in San Bruno (FWLA, 

2011). The trench site is located directly between the two fault crossing locations. Review of 

historical stereographic aerial photographs and ground reconnaissance shows the main Serra 

Fault at the park to coincide with a side-hill bench and a low (~1- to 2-foot-high) scarp, and local 

outcrops of resistant “knockers” of greenstone and greywacke. 

5.15.1.3 Seismicity and Geologic Hazards 

Groundshaking is the product of a specific earthquake as manifested at a particular location with 

specific geologic conditions. The intensity of the groundshaking (also referred to as strong 




5.15 Geology 

ground motion) during an earthquake is dependent on the distance between a site and the 

epicenter of the earthquake, the magnitude of the earthquake, and the geologic conditions 

underlying and surrounding the site. Other conditions being equal, earthquakes with closer 

epicenters or higher magnitudes produce more intense groundshaking. Geologic conditions have 

a substantial impact on the intensity of local groundshaking. 

Areas that are underlain by bedrock tend to experience less groundshaking than those underlain 

by unconsolidated sediments such as artificial fill or alluvium. The composition of underlying 

soils in areas relatively distant from earthquake epicenters can intensify groundshaking from 

specific earthquakes. For instance, locations in the San Francisco Bay Area that experienced the 

worst structural damage during the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake were not those closest to the 

epicenter. Instead, the greatest damage was on Bay Muds and artificial fill, because those soils 

magnified the effects of groundshaking (Plafker and Galloway, 1989). 

Figure 5.15-7 presents historic seismicity in the San Francisco Bay Area for earthquakes larger 

than or equal to magnitude M2.0 for the period 1967 to the 2011. A review of historic earthquake 

activity from 1800 to 2009 indicates that 10 earthquakes of magnitude M6.0 or greater have 

occurred in and near the study area during that time frame. A summary of these significant 

and/or damaging earthquakes is presented in Table 15.5-2. 

5.15.1.4 Seismic Hazards 

Surface Fault Rupture 

The main Serra Fault zone is identified at the San Andreas Pipeline No. 2 (SAPL2) and San 

Andreas Pipeline No. 3 (SAPL3) crossing and the Sunset Supply Branch Pipeline (SSBPL) 

crossing, and constitutes a significant fault rupture hazard at both the San Bruno South and 

Millbrae sites. The main fault is characterized by the presence of shearing and the juxtaposition of 

clayey Franciscan mélange over sandy Merced Formation at the SAPL2 and SAPL3 crossing, and 

by clay gouge derived from mélange that is in fault contact with sandy Merced Formation at the 

SSBPL crossing. The main Serra Fault strikes about N30W and dips gently (12SW) at the 

SAPL2 and SAPL3 crossing. The main Serra Fault strikes between about N10W and N30W and 

dips gently (approximately 29 SW) at the SSBPL crossing. Total fault movements for each of the 

pipeline crossings, using a best estimate 975-year net displacement and deterministic values, 

range between 7 and 22 inches, respectively. Movement of the Serra Fault would likely be 

secondary, or sympathetic, related to a major event on the nearby San Andreas Fault rather than 

primary displacement of the Serra Fault itself (FWLA, 2011). 

Seismically Induced Ground Failure: Liquefaction and Related Failures 

Liquefaction is a secondary effect of groundshaking, whereby saturated granular sediments 

temporarily lose their strength and stiffness. Liquefaction can be mechanically induced to 

consolidate sediments at a site prior to construction, but presents a hazard when it occurs as a 

result of earthquake-induced, strong groundshaking. The susceptibility of a site to liquefaction is 

a function of the thickness, depth below ground surface, density, and water content of the 

sediments and the intensity of groundshaking at the site. Loose saturated sediments near the 

ground surface are most susceptible to liquefaction. As sediments consolidate over time, they 



Sacramento 

Arden-Arcade 

Santa 

Rosa 

Vacaville 

Napa 

Fairfield 

Vallejo 

Richmond 

Concord 

Antioch 

Stockton 

Berkeley 



Daly 

City 

^ 

^^^ 

Millbrae 

Oakland 

Alameda 


Leandro 


Mateo 

Redwood 

City 

Hayward 

Union 

City 

Fremont 

Livermore 

Modesto 

Mountain 

View 

Sunnyvale 

Santa 

Clara San Jose 

lcd U:\GIS\SFPUC_Peninsula_Pipeline\Projects\EIR\ADEIR2\Fig5_15_7_geology_historic_seismicity.mxd 10/3/2012 3:18:20 PM 

Magnitude 

! 2.0 

! 2.1 - 3.0 

! 3.1 - 3.9 

! 4.0 - 5.0 

! 

! 6.1 

5.1 - 6.0 

- 7.0 

7.1+ 

Note: Earthquakes in the San Francisco Bay Area with magnitude 2.0 or greater from 1967 to 2011. 

^ Project Site 

0 10 20 

Miles 

$ 

FIGURE 

Salinas 

HISTORIC SEISMICITY 




5.15-7 

Source: Northern California Earthquake Catalog Search (http://www.ncedc.org/ncedc/catalog-search.html), 2011; USGS Historic Earthquakes, 2011.


5.15 Geology 

Table 5.15-2 

Significant Historic Earthquakes in the San Francisco Bay Area 

Date 

Earthquake 

Magnitude 1 

Name, Location, 

or Region 

Affected 

Associated 

Fault Comments 2 

June 10, 1836 ~M6.25 South San 

Francisco Bay 

Unknown, east 

of Monterey 

Bay 

Shaking from Santa Clara to 

Carmel. Previously attributed to a 

source on the Hayward Fault from 

comparisons made at the time of 

that later event. 

June 1838 

Assumed 

between 

M6.8 and 

M7.4 


Area 


Associated with probable rupture 

of the San Andreas Fault from 

Santa Clara to San Francisco 

(approximately 37 miles). Walls 

were cracked at Mission Dolores 

and in Monterey. 

October 8, 1865 M6.5 Santa Cruz 

Mountain 


Caused severe damage in New 

Almaden, Petaluma, San Francisco, 

San Jose, Santa Clara, and Santa 

Cruz, resulting in $500,000 in 

property damage. Ground cracks, 

heaving, and subsidence were 

noted in several areas. 

October 21, 1868 M6.8 Hayward Hayward Felt throughout northern 

California and Nevada. Resulted 

in 30 deaths and $300,000 in 

property damage. Occurred on the 

Hayward Fault, with rupture from 

Berkeley to Fremont. Caused 

severe damage in the East Bay and 

San Francisco; destroyed Mission 

San Jose. U.S. Geological Survey 

estimates M7.0. 

June 20, 1897 M6.2 Gilroy Calaveras Felt from Woodland to San Luis 

Obispo. Resulted in building 

collapse in the Santa Clara Valley. 

Fissures were noted on the 

Calaveras Fault southeast of 

Gilroy. 

March 31, 1898 M6.3 Mare Island Rodgers Creek Approximately $350,000 in 

property damage from building 

collapse at Mare Island Naval 

Yard and Tubbs Island. Additional 

severe damage at Schellville, 

Greenwood Estate, and along 

Petaluma Creek in Sonoma 

County, with moderate damage in 

San Francisco. 




5.15 Geology 

Table 15.5-2 

Significant Historic Earthquakes in the San Francisco Bay Area (Continued) 

Date 

Earthquake 

Magnitude 1 

Name, Location, 

or Region 

Affected 

Associated 

Fault Comments 2 

April 18, 1906 M7.8 San Francisco 

Earthquake, San 



Earthquake and resulting fires 

caused approximately 3,000 deaths 

and $524 million in damage 

($24 million from the earthquake 

alone). Destruction from earthquake 

occurred at distances of up 

to 350 miles from the epicenter. 

June 1, 1911 M6.4 Morgan Hill Calaveras Caused substantial damage in 

Gilroy and the Santa Clara Valley. 

Felt as far away as Reno, Nevada. 

April 24, 1984 M6.2 Morgan Hill 

Earthquake, 

Morgan Hill 

October 17, 1989 M6.9 Loma Prieta 

Earthquake, 

Santa Cruz 

Mountains 

Calaveras 


Earthquake was felt from San 

Francisco to Bakersfield, and was 

located near the epicenter of the 

1911 earthquake in Morgan Hill. 

Resulted in injuries and approximately 

$8 million in property 

damage. 

Largest earthquake to occur on the 

San Andreas Fault since 1906. 

Resulted in 63 deaths, more than 

3,000 injuries, and an estimated 

$6 billion in property damage. 

Severe damage occurred from San 

Francisco to Monterey and in the 

East Bay, and included damage 

and destruction of buildings, 

roads, bridges, and freeways. 

Source: SF Planning, 2010. 

Notes: 

1 Earthquake magnitudes and locations before 1932 are estimated by Real et al., 1978; Toppozada et al., 1981; 

Toppozada and Parke, 1982; Toppozada et al., 1992; and Toppozada and Borchardt, 1998, based on reports of damage 

and felt effects. Magnitudes reported using the Richter scale or equivalents. 

2 Earthquake damage information primarily compiled from the national Earthquake Information Center and the 

Berkeley Seismological Laboratory websites. Estimates of property damage are in dollars valued to the year of 

damage. 




5.15 Geology 

usually become less susceptible to liquefaction. For this reason, younger (i.e., Holocene-aged) 

alluvial sediments are especially prone to liquefaction (Knudsen et al., 2005). Damage from 

liquefaction results from any of a number of ground responses, including densification and 

subsidence, lateral spreading and flow failures, ground oscillation, and loss of bearing strength 

and temporary buoyancy of structures on the liquefied sediments (ABAG, 2001). Damage from 

liquefaction is generally most severe when liquefaction occurs within 15 to 20 feet of the ground 

surface. 

Lateral spreading is a secondary effect of liquefaction, whereby large blocks of intact, 

nonliquefied soil move downslope on a liquefied substrate (Youd and Perkins, 1978; Tinsley et 

al., 1985). The mass moves toward an unconfined area such as down a slope. Because the failure 

surface is liquefied and has no strength to resist movement, lateral spreading can occur on slope 

gradients as gentle as a few degrees (ABAG, 2001). 

Settlement of the ground surface can be accelerated and accentuated by earthquakes. During an 

earthquake, settlement can occur as a result of the relatively rapid rearrangement and 

compaction of subsurface materials, causing the land surface to subside. Loose, uncompacted, 

sandy sediments are most prone to settlement; if this material is saturated and liquefies, 

settlement is typically greater. Settlement can occur both uniformly and differentially (i.e., where 

adjoining areas settle at different rates). Areas are susceptible to differential settlement if 

underlain by compressible but nonhomogeneous sediments, such as poorly engineered artificial 

fill. With even small amounts of differential settlement, overlying structures are likely to be 

damaged (ABAG, 2001). 

Liquefaction, lateral spreading, and seismic settlement may occur at the Colma and South San 

Francisco sites (GTC, 2011c). 

Groundshaking can induce substantial changes in the stresses on slopes, causing earthquakeinduced 

landslides or ground cracking if these changes are sufficient to cause the slope to fail. 

Landslides can occur in areas that are at moderate risk for landslides if they are also subject to 

strong ground motion during an earthquake. Strong groundshaking can trigger landslides on 

steep terrain underlain by weak soil and low-strength sheared rock, such as Franciscan mélange. 

The risk of landslides increases when the groundshaking occurs during periods of wet weather, 

compounding the effect of ground saturation on reduced slope stability (Highland and 

Bobrowski, 2008). 

5.15.1.5 Geologic Hazards 

Expansive/Corrosive/Collapsible Soils 

The engineering properties of site soils can contribute to geologic hazards, such as those 


 

Expansivity can occur when a soil is subjected to variations in moisture content that can 

relate to shrinkage and/or swelling, and thus to differential ground movements. 

Susceptibility is usually related to the content of expansive clays; therefore, coarse-grained 

soils are, by definition, not susceptible to expansion. An increase in moisture content triggers 

expansivity, while a decrease leads to shrinkage. 




5.15 Geology 

 

 

Corrosivity to buried concrete and/or steel can occur when the chemical properties plus 

moisture conditions result in failure of engineering structures, unless they are properly 

designed and constructed. 

Collapsible materials are normally related to the soil structure, a function of depositional 

environment. Materials deposited rapidly in a generally arid environment are normally the 

most susceptible to collapse. 

The soils data, described below, do not indicate that these types of geologic hazards would occur 

at the PPSU project sites. 

Landslides 

A landslide is a geological phenomenon that includes a wide range of ground movement. The 

action of gravity is the primary driving force for a landslide to occur; the slope of the hillside, and 

soil and rock conditions generally, resist the action of gravity. These resisting forces can decrease 

with increased slope steepness (as from erosion or excavation of the toe of the slope), with 

reduced soil cohesion or internal friction, and with increased soil pore water. Often, these 

changes occur gradually and make the area/slope prone to failure, whereas the actual landslide 

often requires a trigger such as earthquake shaking or rapid changes in soil pore water pressure 

(Johnson and DeGraff, 1988; Highland and Bobrowski, 2008). 

Landslides can be classified based on the material involved (e.g., bedrock, coarse-grained soil, or 

fine-grained soil), the geometry of the failure surface (e.g., planar, translational, rotational), and 

the rapidity of earth movement (Johnson and DeGraff, 1988). Three types of damaging landslide 

activity that range from slow-moving to fast-moving and that could potentially occur within the 

study area are slides, earth flows, and debris flows. The term slide includes both slumps and 

translational slides, and earth flows are composed of clayey earth (Highland and Bobrowski, 2008). 

These kinds of landslides move slowly, in contrast to the rapid movement of debris flows. Slides 

and earth flows result in a deformed ground surface when they move, but remain in the 

landscape as recognizable landslide masses when they come to rest; whereas debris flows run 

downslope to locations lower in the landscape and form separate deposits that quickly become 

unrecognizable (Wentworth et al., 1997). 

Geologists from Fugro William Lettis & Associates, Inc. identified several shallow landslides in 

the Franciscan mélange above the main Serra Fault in the roadcut for Interstate 280, to the east of 

the SFPUC right-of-way (ROW), near the intersection with the Whitman Way onramp (FWLA, 

2011). This geologic investigation was conducted on behalf of the SFPUC for the purpose of 

designing the PPSU project. Mapped landslides are not located in the project sites. 

Soils 

The characteristics of soil reflect the influences of climate, biological activity, time, and 

topography on the weathering of geological source material. Most of the soils in the study area 

have formed from in situ weathering of bedrock and are loamy (a mixture of sand, silt, and clay) 

(NRCS, 2009). 




5.15 Geology 

Figures 5.15-8 and 5.15-9 present a map showing the distribution of naturally occurring soils in 

the study area (Figure 5.15-8: Colma and South San Francisco sites and the common staging area; 

and Figure 5.15-9: San Bruno North and South and Millbrae sites) (USDA/SCS, 1991). The 

descriptions of the soil units are provided in Table 5.15-3. 

As shown on Figure 5.15-8, the Colma and South San Francisco sites are predominantly underlain 

by Urban Land (greater than 85 percent covered by development), and the common staging area 

is underlain by Urban Land Orthents, smoothed complex 5- to 50-percent slopes. 

As shown on Figure 5.15-9, the San Bruno North site is dominantly underlain by Orthents 5- to 

75-percent slopes and Urban Land Orthents 5- to 75-percent slopes. The San Bruno South site is 

predominantly underlain by Urban land (the main staging and spoils areas), Urban Land 

Orthents 5- to 75-percent slopes, and Orthents, cut and fill, 15- to 75-percent slopes (pipeline 

ROW). The Millbrae site is underlain predominantly by Candlestick-Kron-Buriburi Complex 

soils, 30- to 75-percent slopes, some Orthents, cut and fill, 0- to 15-percent slopes along the golf 

course, and a small area of Urban Land Orthents 5- to 75-percent slopes near the trailhead at 

Lomita Avenue and Larkspur Drive access routes. 



There are no federal regulations governing geologic and seismic hazards that are applicable to 


5.15.2.2 State 

Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act 

California’s Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (California Public Resources Code Sec. 

2621 et seq.), originally enacted in 1972 as the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act and 

renamed in 1994, is intended to reduce the risk to life and property from surface fault rupture 

during earthquakes. The Alquist-Priolo Act prohibits the location of most types of structures 

intended for human occupancy across the traces of active faults and strictly regulates 

construction in the corridors along active faults (earthquake fault zones). It also defines criteria 

for identifying active faults, giving legal weight to terms such as active, and establishes a process 

for reviewing building proposals in and adjacent to Earthquake Fault Zones. 

Under the Alquist-Priolo Act, faults are zoned and construction along or across them is strictly 

regulated if they are “sufficiently active” and “well-defined.” A fault is considered sufficiently 

active if one or more of its segments or strands shows evidence of surface displacement during 

Holocene time (defined for purposes of the Act as referring to approximately the last 

11,000 years). A fault is considered well-defined if its trace can be clearly identified by a trained 

geologist at the ground surface or in the shallow subsurface, using standard professional 

techniques, criteria, and judgment (Hart and Bryant, 1997). 



O 

DR 

SULLIVAN AVE 


COLMA 

BLVD 

SERBIAN 

CEMETERY 

SR 82 

SR 1 

CTR 

SERRAM ON T E 

COLMA SITE 

COLLINS AVE 

CEMETERY 

HILLSIDE BLVD 

MORNINGSIDE 

vsa/ed U:\GIS\SFPUC_Peninsula_Pipeline\Projects\EIR\ADEIR2\Fig5_15_8_geology_soil_types_north.mxd 10/4/2012 5:29:20 PM 

ANDOVER DR 

MANOR DR 

YSABEL 

P E NHURST AVE 

MORTON DR 

Soil Type 

DR 

L OCKHAV 

SERRAMONTE 

W EMBLEY 

SUNSET DR 

SIMPSON DR 

WAKEFIELD AVE 

CANTERBURY AVE 

EN DR 

DR 

VICTORIA ST 

CLARIDGE DR 

SPYGLASS DR 

SR 35 

SHARP PARK RD 

CHILTON LN 

PARNELL AVE 

LEIX WAY 

BLVD 

MARBLY AVE 

SKY RI D GE 

COLBY WAY 

DR 

PHILIP 

MON 

W AY 

HICKEY BLVD 

DERBY 

JOHN GLENNCIR 

NELSON CT 

MADERA WAY 

WARWICK 

CARTER DR 

ATHY DR 

HALF MOON LN 

SERRAVISTA AVE 

LYCETT CIR 

TRE E 

NORWOOD 

AVE 

ST 

DENNIS 

IMPERIA L 

TE VISTA LN 

DR 

T OPS CIR 

SUMMIT RD 

ST 

D R 

ELSTON DR 

HAMPSHIRE CT 

VERDUCCI DR 

BUX TON AVE 

FASMAN DR 

ADRIAN AVE 

I 280 

GREENDALE DR 

DUN DE E 

BARBARA LN 

MICHELLE LN 

Barnabe-Rock outrock complex- 

15 to 75 percent slopes 

Barnabe-Candlestick complex- 


Candlestick variant loam- 


Candlestick-Kron-Buriburi complex- 


Fagan loam- 


Los Gatos loam- 


Orthents, cut and fill-Urban land complex- 


Orthents, cut and fill- 






Urban land 

Urban land-Orthents, reclaimed complex- 


Urban land-Orthents, cut and fill complex- 


Urban land-Orthents, smoothed complex- 




Zeni-Zeni variant gravelly loams- 


Water 

Project Site 

Sources: SFPUC 2011; Soil Data, NRCS, 2010 

F 

CAMELOT CT 

BANTRY LN 

ARDEE LN 

TARA LN 

SUSAN DR 

GEOFFREY DR 

MANSFIELD DR 

DR 

LONGFORD DR 

KING DR 

GALWAY PL 

MEDINA DR 

C OLLEGE DR 

GOODWIN DR 

C ALVERT AVE 

WICKLOW DR 

LYM 

A IRFAX WAY 

CT 

DU BLIN 

ARLINGTON DR 

P 

UTH CIR 

GALWAY DR 

MUIRFIELD CIR 

OAKMONT DR 

FLEETWOOD DR 

BRADFORD DR 

KIPLING AVE 

RADBURN DR 

ERIN PL 

DUVAL DR 

C R O W N 

NEWMAN DR 

OLYMPIC DR 

CIR 

BYRON DR 

EL 

ELKWOOD DR 

DUBLIN DR 

R 

SAINT CLOUD DR 

KEONCREST DR 

BERKSHIRE DR 

SHANNON DR 

CHABOT DR 

DEL MONTE AVE 

THERESA DR 

ZITA DR 

ANCHO DR 

SERRA DR 

ALTAMONT DR 

ARBOR DR 


JOAQUIN DR 

CATHERINE DR 

CUESTA DR 


DONEGAL AVE 

TIPPERARY AVE 

EVERGREEN DR 

$ 

0 1,000 2,000 

Feet 

APPIAN 

WAY 

K ENRY 

WEXFORD AVE 

SHER W OOD DR 

ORCHID 

D R 

SR 82 

CAMARITAS AVE 


CASEY DR 

MAYWOOD DR 

NYLA AVE 

APRILAVE 

WAY 

ALTA MESADR 

ESCANYO 

PINECREST 

DR 

CYMBIDIUM 

SAN FELIPE AVE 

VISTA CT 

DR 

CIR 

ALTURA WAY 

VERANO DR 

CLARA AVE 

CA PAY 

VALLEYVIEW 

EL CAMPO DR 

WAY 

CI R 

SEVILL E WAY 

VALLEYWOOD DR 

MISSION RD 

ALTA LOMA DR 

CARMEL O 

INDIO DR 

BAYWOOD AVE 

BONITA AVE 


VALVERDE DR 

FERNWOODDR 

EVERGREEN DR 

LN 

VALENCIA 

CRESTWOOD DR 

SEQUOIA AVE 

DELPASO DR 

DR 

ZAMORA DR 

FERNDALE AVE 

WESTVIEW DR 

GRANADA 

SUNNYSIDE 

CONMUR ST 

BRIAR 

BIRCH AVE 

CRESTWOOD DR 

HAVEN 

DORADO WAY 

HEATHER W AY 

DR 

FOREST VIEW DR 

GRAND 

SO UTHWOOD DR 

HILL 

AVE 

AVE 

ALTA VISTA DR 

W OOD D R 

WILLOW AVE 

AVE 

AN TOINETTE 

KNOLL CI R 

FAIRWAY DR 

DOLORES WAY 

S USIE WAY 

AVE 

OAK AVE 

PONDEROSA RD 

LN 

2ND ST 

DR 

COUNTRY CLUB 

A ST 

HAZELWOOD DR 

WILDWOOD DR 

DR 

ALDENGLEN DR 

L U 

ALIDA WAY 

PICCADILLY PL 

CCA 

C ST 

STONEGATE 

D R 

IDA DR 

TAMARACK LN 

4TH LN 

3RD LN 

BADEN AVE 

2ND LN 

COMMERCIAL AVE 

NORTHWOOD DR 

G REENWOOD D R 

B ST 

JAMES CT 

BRENTWOOD DR 

EUCALYPTUS AVE 

TENNIS DR 

MANOR DR 

ROCKWOOD DR 

SOIL TYPES 

NORTH SITES 




FIGURE 5.15-8

PAR 

PLROBERT 

D R 

MOR EL AND 

WEXFORD AVE 

DONEGAL AVE 

TIPPERARY AVE 

SHANNON DR 

EVERGREEN DR 

WILLOW WAY 

FLEETWOOD 

DR 

OOD DR 

SHER W 

DR 

MAY WOOD 

CARMEL DR 

COTTONWOOD DR 

VALLEYVIEW WAY 

DR 

ROLLINGWOOD 

A VALON DR 

SEVILLE WAY 

D R 

OOD 

FERNW 

TOYON WAY 

CATALPA WAY 

CRESTWOOD DR 

ALTA VISTA DR 

ENGVAL 

HAZELWOOD DR 

BRIA R W 

DR 

WILDWOOD DR 

OOD 

D R 

G REENWOOD 

PICCADILLY PL 

MANOR DR 

BOARDWALK AVE 

ROCKWOOD DR 

DR 

COMMODORE 

I380 

GRU NDY 

LN 

BAYHILL 

DR 

HUNTINGTON A 

FOREST LN 

GREEN AVE 

SCOTT ST 

MILLS AVE 

MASSON AVE 

EUCLID AVE 

EASTON AVE 

VE 

SAN MATEO AVE 

WALNUT ST 

4TH AVE 

3RD AVE 

6TH 

AVE 

5TH AVE 

SHAW RD 

7TH AVE 

B E 

A CON 

ST 

RD9 

RD 6 

ACCESS RD 

AMADOR AVE 

MER CED DR 

LAKE DR 

ULARE DR 

T 

GREE NWOOD WAY 

EARL 

SNEATH LN 

CLAR 

AVE 

EMONT 

DR 


CHERRY AVE 

KAINS 

AVE 

BEECH AVE 

ANGUS AVE 

TAYLOR AVE 


GLENVIEW DR 

L 

CT 

TRENTON 

DR 

PEPPER 


DR 

PARK A VE 

OAKAVE 

HAZEL AVE 

HENSLEY AVE 

ACACIA AVE 

LINDEN AVE 

MASTICK AVE 

I280 



LARKSPUR DR 

SR 82 

1ST AVE 

2ND AVE 

US 101 

ELM AVE 

vsa/ed U:\GIS\SFPUC_Peninsula_Pipeline\Projects\EIR\ERO_DEIR\Fig5_15_9_geology_soil_types_south.mxd 2/12/2013 12:43:02 PM 

Soil Type 

FIRE 

TRL 

SR 35 

CRESTMOOR 

PRINCETON 

Barnabe-Rock outrock complex- 


Barnabe-Candlestick complex- 


Candlestick variant loam- 


Candlestick-Kron-Buriburi complex- 


Fagan loam- 


Los Gatos loam- 










Urban land 

Urban land-Orthents, reclaimed complex- 




Urban land-Orthents, smoothed complex- 




Zeni-Zeni variant gravelly loams- 


Water 

Project Site 

Sources: SFPUC 2011; Soil Data, NRCS 201 

DR 

ALCOTT RD 

DR 

WHITMAN WAY 

ROSEWOOD DR 

DR 

COU RTLAND 

CIRCLE 

4WD 

CT 

RD 

$ 

0 1,000 2,000 

Feet 

REDWOOD AVE 

HAWTHORNE AVE 

CUNNINGHAM 

CEDAR AVE 

WAY 

ROBIN 

MAPLE AVE 

LN 

BROOKSIDE 

SYCAMORE DR 

NILES AVE 

DONN 

CRYSTAL 

LN 

ER AVE 

BANBURY 

SPRINGS RD 

K VIEW DR 

RIDGEWOOD DR 

LN 

TUOLUMNE 

SKYLINE BLVD 

CYPRESS AVE 

BAYVIEW AVE 

LOMITA AVE 

RD 

POPLAR AVE 

AHWAHNEE DR 

LA 

PRENDA 

EAST AVE 

SANTA LUCIA AVE 

JUANITA AVE 

PARK BLVD 

BARCELONA DR 

MILLBRAE SITE 

DR 

TIOGA 

VISTA 

HELEN DR 

VALLEJO DR 

SAN LUIS AVE 

GRANDE 

MI L 

MILLWOOD DR 

PARAMOUNT DR 

L 

PARK PL 

A NI TA LN 

LOWE R VIS 

BRAEAVE 

MADERA WAY 

CONEJO 

SAN ANSELMO AVE 

LUDEMAN LN 

L N 

N 

G REE 

MICHAEL 

EL BONITO WAY 

AURAVI S 

A 

C 

DR 

SAN ANTONIO AVE 

VIA 

SR 35 

HILLS DR 

ANITA DR 

RICHMOND DR 

MINOALTO 

LIN C 

O 

CAN O N 

MURCHISON 

MANZANITA DR 

HUNT DR 

LN CIR 

DR 

ENCINA 

LANDING LN 

CENTER ST 

BROADWAY 

MAGNOLIA AVE 

EL PASEO 

LAS UEN DR 

LAUREL AVE 

ATWATER DR 

PALM AVE 

HAZEL AVE 

FRONTERA 

TROUSDALE 

LOYOLA DR 

DR 

ASHTON AVE 

LAKE ST 

TOYON DR 

POPLAR AVE 

CASTENADA 

BAY ST 

MONTEREY ST 

WAY 

MARIPOSA DR 

DR 

ELDER AVE 

PINE ST 

SEQUOIA AVE 

DR 

RIVERA DR 

SOIL TYPES 

SOUTH SITES 




FIGURE 5.15-9


5.15 Geology 

Table 5.15-3 

Soil Types in the Study Area 

Soil Type 1 

Predominant 

Parent Material 

Permeability 

and Other 

Physical 

Properties 

Runoff 

Water 

Erosion 

Hazard 

Other 

110 

Candlestick-Kron- 

Buriburi Complex, 

30- to 75-percent 

slopes 

Hard, fractured 

sandstone 

Moderately 

slow to 

moderate 

Rapid or 

very rapid 

High or very 

high 

Highly susceptible 

to slippage when 

wet 

121 

Orthents – Cut and 

Fill 0- to 15-percent 

slopes 

Hard or soft 

sandstone 

Highly 

variable due to 

different fill 

materials 

Medium Moderate Typically used for 

recreational 

development (e.g., 

golf courses) or 

cemeteries 

122 

Orthents – Cut and 

Fill 15- to 75-percent 

slopes 

Sandstone 

Highly 



materials 

Rapid or 

very rapid 

High or very 

high 

Typically urban 

development 

124 

Orthents Cut and Fill 

Urban Land 

Complex 


slopes 

Sandstone 

Highly 

variable 

Medium to 

very rapid 

Moderate to 

very high 

Typically used for 

urban development 

131 

Urban Land 

(>85 percent covered 

by asphalt, concrete, 

buildings) 

N/A N/A N/A N/A Typically used for 

homesite, urban 

and recreational 

development 

133 

Urban Land – 

Orthents Cut and Fill 

Complex 


slopes 

N/A 

Highly 



materials 

Medium to 

very rapid 

Moderate to 

very high 


homesite 

development, 

including roads 

and streets 

135 

Urban Land – 

Orthents, smoothed 

complex, 


slopes 

Soft sandstone 

Highly 

variable 

Medium to 

rapid 

Moderate or 

high 


homesite 

development 

Source: USDA/SCS, 1991. 

Note: 

1 Refer to Figures 5.15-8 and 5.15-9 for location of soil types relative to project components. 




5.15 Geology 

Seismic Hazards Mapping Act 

Like the Alquist-Priolo Act, the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act of 1990 (California Public 

Resources Code Sections 2690-2699.6) is intended to reduce damage resulting from earthquakes. 

While the Alquist-Priolo Act addresses surface fault rupture, the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act 

addresses other earthquake-related hazards, including strong groundshaking, liquefaction, and 

seismically induced landslides. Its provisions are similar in concept to those of the Alquist-Priolo 

Act: The state is charged with identifying and mapping areas at risk of strong groundshaking, 

liquefaction, landslides, and other corollary hazards, and cities and counties are required to 

regulate development within mapped Seismic Hazard Zones. 

Under the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act, permit review is the primary mechanism for local 

regulation of development. Specifically, cities and counties are prohibited from issuing 

development permits for sites within Seismic Hazard Zones until appropriate site-specific 

geologic and/or geotechnical investigations have been carried out and measures to reduce 

potential damage have been incorporated into the development plans. 

Building Codes 

The California Building Code (CBC), which is codified in Title 24 of the California Code of 

Regulations, Part 2, was promulgated to safeguard the public health, safety, and general welfare 

by establishing minimum standards related to structural strength, egress facilities, and general 

building stability. The purpose of the CBC is to regulate and control the design, construction, 

quality of materials, use/occupancy, location, and maintenance of all buildings and structures 

within its jurisdiction. Title 24 is administered by the California Building Standards Commission, 

which, by law, is responsible for coordinating all building standards. Under state law, all 

building standards must be centralized in Title 24 or they are not enforceable. 

The 2010 CBC is based on the 2009 International Building Code. In addition, the CBC contains 

necessary California amendments that are based on the American Society of Civil Engineers 

Minimum Design Standards 7-05. American Society of Civil Engineers 7-05 provides 

requirements for general structural design and includes means for determining earthquake loads 

as well as other loads (flood, snow, wind, etc.) for inclusion in building codes. The provisions of 

the CBC apply to the construction, alteration, movement, replacement, and demolition of every 

building or structure or any appurtenances connected or attached to such buildings or structures 

throughout California. 

The earthquake design requirements take into account the occupancy category of the structure, 

site class, soil classifications, and various seismic coefficients, all of which are used to determine a 

Seismic Design Category (SDC) for a project. The SDC is a classification system that combines the 

occupancy categories with the level of expected ground motions at the site, and ranges from 

SDC A (very small seismic vulnerability) to SDC E/F (very high seismic vulnerability and near a 

major fault). Design specifications are then determined according to the SDC. 

While construction of any aboveground facilities would generally be subject to the CBC, the 

Building Seismic Safety Council acknowledges that structures that require special considerations, 

such as buried utility lines, and their appurtenances, are not typical structures (BSSC, 2009). 




5.15 Geology 

5.15.2.3 Local 

SFPUC General Seismic Design Requirements 

The SFPUC established the General Seismic Design Requirements (SFPUC, 2006) to implement 

consistent criteria for the design and retrofit of all facilities and components of the regional water 

system. These design requirements require that every Water System Improvement Program 

project must have project-specific design criteria based on the local seismic environment and the 

importance of the subject facility to achieve the water service delivery goals in the event of a 

major earthquake. A major earthquake is identified in the General Seismic Design Requirements 

as earthquakes of M 7.8 or larger on the San Andreas Fault, M 7.1 or larger on the Hayward Fault, 

or M 6.8 or larger on the Calaveras Fault. The design criteria are based on standard industry 

practices, codes and standards, but exceed these requirements for facilities that are located in a 

severe seismic environment and are needed to achieve water system delivery goals. Under these 

design requirements, each facility is evaluated for its necessity in meeting the water service 

delivery goals and assigned a seismic performance class for the purposes of determining 

appropriate seismic design criteria. 

Facilities needed to achieve a basic level of service within 24 hours of a major earthquake are 

assigned a seismic performance class of Critical. Facilities needed to achieve the specified level of 

service within 30 days of a major earthquake are classified as Important. This class includes 

structures and components of the storage, distribution, treatment, and control systems with some 

level of redundancy, or for which failure would not result in an unacceptable level of service. 

Other facilities, such as administrative centers, repair shops, service centers, and similar support 

facilities, are classified as Standard. These facilities are not needed to achieve the water service 

delivery goals of the Water System Improvement Program and might not be repaired following a 

major earthquake for economic reasons. 

The PPSU project would be classified as “Critical” due to the number of components and control 

systems with little or no redundancy, the failure of which would result in an unacceptable level 

of service (G&E Engineering Systems, Inc., 2012). 




impacts related to geology and soils, but generally considers that implementation of the proposed 

project would have a significant impact on geology and soils if it would: 

 

Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, 

injury, or death involving: 

 

Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo 

Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the state geologist for the area or based on other 

substantial evidence of a known fault (refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special 

Publication 42), 




5.15 Geology 

 

 

 

Strong seismic groundshaking, 

Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction, or 

Landslides; 

 

 

 

 

 

Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil; 

Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a 

result of the project, and potentially result in onsite or offsite landslide, lateral spreading, 

subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse; 

Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code, 

creating substantial risks to life or property; 

Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative 

wastewater disposal systems; or 

Substantially change the topography or any unique geologic or physical features of the site. 



following significance criteria. Therefore, an impact discussion is not provided for the reasons 


PPSU project construction would have no impacts related to the following significance criteria: 

 

 

Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of 

loss, injury, or death involving: rupture of a known earthquake fault; strong seismic 

groundshaking; seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; or landslides. 

Because the project construction duration is considered relatively brief compared to the 

recurrence interval for a seismic event, it is considered unlikely that surface fault rupture, 

groundshaking, ground failure, or landslides associated with a seismic event, would have a 

substantial adverse effect on the proposed project. This significance criterion is intended to 

address facility siting and design impacts and does not apply to temporary construction 

impacts. Therefore, this significance criterion is not applicable to project construction 

activities and is discussed below under Impact GE-2 only as it relates to long-term 

operational impacts. 

Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 1 B of the Uniform Building Code, 

creating substantial risks to life or property. This significance criterion is intended to 

address facility siting and design impacts, and does not apply to temporary construction 

impacts. Therefore, this significance criterion is not applicable to project construction 

activities, and is analyzed below under Impact GE-4 only as it relates to project operations. 


 

Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. During project operations, project 

activities would be similar to existing operations and maintenance activities, and would 




5.15 Geology 

entail inspections, discharge of water from the manholes as required by other SFPUC projects 

or inspections, and vegetation management in the SFPUC ROW. Water discharge would be 

conducted in accordance with SFPUC standard operating procedures for erosions control 

and water transmission system discharges (SFPUC’s Erosion Control Standard Operating 

Procedure [RMC Water and Environment, 2008]) and the SFPUC’s Policies and Procedures 

for Transmission System Discharges (SFPUC, 2009a), as well as the San Francisco Regional 

Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)’s Waste Discharge Requirements of Order No. 

R2-2008-0102 (RWQCB, 2008) and the State Water Resources Control Board’s National 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Permit (Order 2003-0003-DWQ), as 

described in Section 5.16, Hydrology and Water Quality. No project operations impacts 

related to soils erosion or loss of topsoil are anticipated. Therefore, this significance criterion 

is not applicable to project operations and is analyzed below under Impact GE-1 only as it 

relates to project construction. 



 

 

Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative 

wastewater disposal systems. Construction and operation of the proposed project would not 

result in the disposal of wastewater via infiltration to soils. Therefore, the significance 

criterion related to the capacity of soils in the project area to support septic tanks or 

alternative wastewater disposal systems is not applicable to construction or operation of the 

proposed project and is not analyzed further. 

Substantially change the topography or any unique geologic or physical features of the 

site. The proposed project would entail excavation activities for the upgrade of the pipelines, 

and the existing topography would be altered during project construction activities. Because 

there are no unique geologic or physical features on the sites, the project sites have 

previously been modified from their natural state, and project-related modifications would 

be consistent with the current character and topography of the site, the project would not 

result in substantial changes to topography or unique features. Therefore, the significance 

criterion related to substantial changes in topography or unique geologic or physical features 

of the site is not applicable to construction or operation of the proposed project, and is not 



Table 5.15-4 summarizes the proposed project’s impacts on geology and soils and the resulting 

significance determination. 


Impact GE-1: The project construction could result in substantial soil erosion or the 

loss of topsoil. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) 

Implementation of the proposed project would require excavation of up to approximately 60,940 

cubic yards of soils to allow for the replacement and upgrade of existing pipelines. A portion of 




5.15 Geology 

Table 5.15-4 

Summary of Impacts – Geology and Soils 

Impacts 

Impact GE-1: The project construction could result in substantial soil erosion 

or the loss of topsoil. 

Impact GE-2: The project would not be located on a geologic unit that is 

unstable or that would become unstable as a result of the project. 

Impact GE-3: The project operations would not expose people or structures to 

potential substantial adverse effects involving surface fault rupture, 

groundshaking, ground failure, or landslides. 

Impact GE-4: During project operations, the project sites are not likely to 

become unstable. 

Impact GE-5: The proposed project would not be located on expansive soils 

that could create substantial risks during project operations. 

Impact C-GE: Project construction could result in a cumulatively considerable 

contribution to cumulative impacts related to geology and soils. 

Significance 

Determination 

LSM 

LS 

LS 

LS 

LS 

LSM 

Notes: 

LS = Less-than-Significant impact, no mitigation required. 

LSM = Less-than-Significant impact, with Mitigation 

the soils would be reused on site and the remaining soils would be off-hauled. The excavation of 

these sites could result in substantial soil erosion during the rainy season. Additionally, the 

discharge and dewatering of water from the pipelines during construction could result in 

downstream erosion. As described in Section 5.16, Hydrology and Water Quality, the proposed 

project would comply with SFPUC standard operating procedures for erosions control and water 

transmission system discharges (SFPUC’s Erosion Control Standard Operating Procedure [RMC 

Water and Environment, 2008] and the SFPUC’s Policies and Procedures for Transmission 

System Discharges [SFPUC, 2009a]). The project would be implemented in accordance with the 

San Francisco RWQCB’s Waste Discharge Requirements of Order No. R2-2008-0102 (RWQCB, 

2008) and with the State Water Resources Control Board’s National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System General Permit (Order 2003-0003-DWQ). 

The removal of the topsoil during site preparation and excavation activities could result in the 

permanent loss of these soils. While it is possible that topsoil was previously disturbed or 

removed from these sites during the installation of the existing pipelines, whatever topsoil does 

remain would be removed during project construction activities. The removal of topsoil could 

result in a significant loss of topsoil. 

Mitigation Measure M-HY-1: Preparation and Implementation of a Storm Water Pollution 

Prevention Plan (see Section 5.16, Hydrology and Water Quality) addresses soil erosion by 

requiring the SFPUC’s construction contractor to prepare and implement a Storm Water 

Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that specifies erosion control measures to be implemented 

during construction activities. This SWPPP would include best management practices to reduce 




5.15 Geology 

the likelihood of erosion; e.g., silt fences or fiber rolls around the perimeter of the construction 

zone, location of stockpiles greater than 50 feet from concentrated flows of water, and 

preservation of existing vegetation wherever possible. Mitigation Measure M-BI-1a: General 

Protection Measures (see Section 5.14, Biological Resources) addresses impacts related to the loss 

of topsoil by requiring the construction contractor to salvage topsoil generated during 

excavations for subsequent use as part of site restoration activities. With implementation of these 

mitigation measures at all project sites, as well as the common staging area, in addition to 

compliance with regulations described above, impacts related to substantial soil erosion or the 

loss of topsoil would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation. 

Impact GE-2: The project would not be located on a geologic unit or soil that is 

unstable or that would become unstable as a result of the project. (Less than 

Significant) 

The project would not be located on statically unstable soils or geologic materials. However, as 

described in Section 5.15.1.4, Seismic Hazards, above, during an earthquake the soils at the Colma 

and South San Francisco sites could become dynamically unstable (GTC, 2011c). The likelihood of 

an earthquake capable of causing liquefaction, lateral spreading, and seismic settlement 

occurring during the 2-month construction period at the Colma site or the 3-month construction 

period at the South San Francisco site is extremely remote. In addition, during project 

construction, engineered shoring or sloping of excavation faces would prevent slope or 

excavation face instability. Construction activities including excavation, shoring, and trenching 

are subject to occupational safety standards specified in the regulations of the California Division 

of Occupational Safety and Health (Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations and Section A33 

of the CBC), which prescribe allowable slope steepness based on the characteristics of site soils, 

and identify situations where shoring or other support systems are required to ensure worker 

safety. These regulations, and compliance with additional recommendations from site-specific 

geotechnical investigations conducted to support construction activities, would further reduce 

potential impacts related to instability and failure or collapse of temporary excavations. Detailed 

geotechnical investigations have been conducted at the five sites (GTC, 2011a, GTC, 2011b, and 

GTC, 2011c). Specific requirements pertain to each of the following activities: site preparation; 

excavations and ground support; groundwater/dewatering; pipeline trenching; pipe bedding and 

pipe-zone backfill; trench zone backfill; trenchless crossings; modulus of soil reaction; thrust 

block design; and corrosion. These requirements would be implemented for the project as 

described in Section 3.8 of the Project Description. For all of the above reasons, impacts related to 

unstable geologic units or soils would be less than significant. 


Impact GE-3: The project operations would not expose people or structures to potential 

substantial adverse effects involving surface fault rupture, groundshaking, ground 

failure, or landslides. (Less than Significant) 

The proposed project would reduce the seismic vulnerability of SAPL2, SAPL3, and SSBPL to 

earthquakes. This would be accomplished by replacing pipeline segments and providing 

structural support for pipeline segments where they are susceptible to the Serra Fault, 

liquefaction, and groundshaking. Implementation of the SFPUC’s General Seismic Design 




5.15 Geology 

Requirements, described in Section 5.15.2.3, above (which include designation of facilities as 

Critical, Important, or Standard), would serve to ensure that water service delivery goals are 

achieved in the event of a major earthquake without related geology and soils impacts. In 

accordance with SFPUC guidelines, the pipelines are all considered Critical; the retrofits would 

be designed and constructed to the highest standards to ensure that water service delivery goals 

are met. These design requirements require a site-specific investigation, and development of 

project-specific design criteria based on the seismic performance class of the facility as well as the 

site-specific geologic and seismic hazards. 

The seismic criteria and procedures included in the SFPUC’s General Seismic Design 

Requirements are incorporated into the design of the project, including strengthening of the 

pipes. Therefore, impacts during project operation related to seismic hazards, including fault 

rupture, groundshaking, seismic-related liquefaction and settlement, and landslides, would be 


Impact GE-4: During project operations, the project sites are not likely to become 

unstable. (Less than Significant) 

The proposed project involves the seismic upgrade of subsurface pipelines. The pipelines are not 

located on slopes that are subject to failure. Small slope failures are identified in the Franciscan 

mélange exposures over 100 feet east of SAPL3 at the San Bruno South site but not in the Merced 

Formation that underlies the pipe alignment. Therefore, the potential slope instability of the 

reconstructed slopes would be less than significant. 

Impact GE-5: The proposed project would not be located on expansive soils that could 

create substantial risks during project operations. (Less than Significant) 

Problematic soils, including expansive and corrosive soils, can cause damage to improperly 

designed structures and facilities, potentially requiring repairs, and/or increasing the need for 

maintenance. Although clay-rich zones within Franciscan bedrock may be expansive, projectspecific 

geotechnical studies (GTC, 2011a, 2011b, 2011c) have not identified any substantial 

hazards associated with shrink-swell potential in native soils at the PPSU sites. Therefore, the 

PPSU project would have a less-than-significant impact due to expansive or corrosive soils. 


Impact C-GE: Project construction could result in a cumulatively considerable 

contribution to cumulative impacts related to geology and soils. (Less than Significant 


The geographic scope for cumulative geologic and seismic impacts includes the project sites and 

immediate vicinity because these impacts are generally site-specific and depend on the local 

geology and soil conditions. 

The SFPUC’s Groundwater Storage and Recovery project would construct 16 groundwater 

production well facilities in various Peninsula locations, including the Town of Colma, the cities 

of Daly City, South San Francisco, San Bruno, Millbrae, and a small area of unincorporated San 

Mateo County. The SFPUC’s Harry Tracy Water Treatment Plant (HTWTP) Long-Term 




5.15 Geology 

Improvements project entails improvements to water treatment facilities to meet water quality 

and delivery reliability goals, seismic reliability improvements, and other improvements to the 

HTWTP such as pipeline distribution, access, and site improvements. This project is also located 

in San Bruno, on Crystal Springs Road, East of Interstate 280. These projects would comply with 

SFPUC’s General Seismic Design Requirements and the 2010 CBC. The SFPUC General Seismic 

Design Requirements are generally more stringent than the CBC because they take into account 

the critical nature of the facilities that are being upgraded. Other pending development projects 

in San Bruno and Millbrae include 14 single-family homes with a new private access road on 

Cedar Avenue, and improvements to Parkside Intermediate School classroom buildings 

(demolition and replacement) at Donner Avenue and Niles Avenue. In Millbrae, the Millbrae 

Safeway Store Replacement Project would demolish the existing store and reconstruct a new, 

podium style store, with parking underneath, at El Camino Real between Taylor Boulevard and 

Silva Avenue. Each of these three projects would address its specific geologic site conditions in 

accordance with the 2010 CBC. The CBC provides requirements for general structural design and 

determining earthquake and other loads, and provides design specifications based on a project’s 

seismic design category. Compliance with these regulatory requirements would minimize 

potential cumulative impacts related to surface fault rupture, groundshaking, ground failure, 

landslides, slope instability, or expansive soils at each project site, through design for 

strengthened pipelines at fault crossings and at zones susceptible to liquefaction; and through 

pipeline stabilization. Cumulative impacts related to these issues would therefore be less than 

significant. 

All of the cumulative projects described above would require ground disturbance, which could 

result in soil erosion and loss of topsoil. This would be greatest at projects involving new 

construction, as well as at the Parkside Intermediate School, where several aged trees would be 

removed from the western part of the site, and the current landscaping would be replaced. The 

PPSU project could contribute to this potential impact during project construction. Depending on 

the extent of erosion and removal of topsoil, these projects could result in a significant 

cumulative impact. The PPSU project could have a cumulatively considerable contribution to this 

potentially significant impact because project excavation could result in substantial soil erosion 

during the rainy season, and the discharge and dewatering of water from the pipelines during 

construction could result in downstream erosion. Additionally, topsoil would be removed at all 

sites. However, Mitigation Measures M-HY-1: Preparation and Implementation of a SWPPP (see 

Impact HY-1 in Section 5.16, Hydrology and Water Quality, for description), and M-BI-1a: 

General Protection Measures (see Impact BI-1 in Section 5.14, Biological Resources, for 

description), identified under Impact GE-1, would reduce the project’s contribution to cumulative 

impacts. These mitigation measures would require preparation and implementation of a SWPPP 

that includes erosion control measures, the salvage of topsoil excavated during construction 

activities, and reuse of that topsoil during site restoration activities. With implementation of these 

measures, the PPSU project would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution (less than 

significant with mitigation). 




5.15 Geology 


ABAG (Association of Bay Area Governments), 2001. The Real Dirt on Liquefaction: A Guide to 

the Liquefaction Hazard in Future Earthquakes Affecting the San Francisco Bay Area. Available 

online at: www.abag.ca.gov/bayarea/eqmaps/liquefac/Lq_rept.pdf. Accessed July 2009. 

ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers) Minimum Design Standards 7-05. 

Brabb, E. E., R. W. Graymer, and D. L. Jones, 1998. Geology of the Onshore Part of San Mateo 

County, California: A Digital Database. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 98-137, 1:62,500. 

Bryant, W. A., and E. W. Hart, 2007. Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California: Alquist-Priolo 

Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with Index to Earthquake Fault Zone Maps. Special Publication 42. 

California Geologic Survey. 

BSSC (Building Seismic Safety Council), 2003. The 2003 NEHRP Recommended Provisions for 

New Buildings and Other Structures Part 2: Commentary (FEMA 450), Chapter 14. Available 

online at: www.bssconline.org/NEHRP2003/comments. Accessed July 2009. 

CDMG (California Division of Mines and Geology), 1996. Probabilistic Seismic Hazard 

Assessment for the State of California. Open File Report 9608. 

CGS (California Geological Survey), 2002a. California Geomorphic Provinces. Note 36. 

CGS (California Geological Survey), 2002b. The revised 2002 California Probabilistic Seismic 

Hazard Maps. Tianqing Cao, William A. Bryant, Badie Rowshandel, David Branum, and 

Christopher J. Wills. Available online at: www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/psha/Pages/ 

Index.aspx. Accessed July 2009. 

CGS (California Geological Survey), 2009. Seismic Hazards Zonation Program Available online 

at: www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/psha/Pages/Index.aspx. Accessed July 2009. 

Clifton, H. E., and E. L. Leithold, 1991. Quaternary Coastal and Shallow-Marine Facies Sequences, 

Northern California and the Pacific Northwest. In R.B. Morrison (ed.), Quaternary Nonglacial 

Geology: Conterminous U.S. The Geology of North America Volume K-2. Geological Society of 

America. 

FWLA (Fugro William Lettis & Associates, Inc.), 2011. Final Report, Fault Rupture Hazard 

Assessment. San Andreas Numbers 2 and 3 and Sunset Supply Branch Pipelines Serra Fault Zone 

Crossings, San Bruno and Millbrae, California. January. 


Final Conceptual Engineering Report. April. GTC (Geotechnical Consultants, Inc.), 2011a. Final 

Geotechnical Data Report, Peninsula Pipelines Seismic Upgrade, CS-101, SF10016B, March. 






5.15 Geology 


Report, Peninsula Pipelines Upgrade, CS 101, SF10016C, November. 

Graymer, R.W., W. Bryant, C.A. McCabe, S. Hecker, and C.S. Prentice, 2006. Map of Quaternaryactive 

Faults in the San Francisco Bay Region: USGS Scientific Investigations Map 2919, scale 

1:275,000, digital files. Available online at: http://pubs.usgs.gov/sim/2006/2919. 

Hengesh, J. V., J. M. Nolan, and J. Wakabayashi, 2004. Seismic Hazards associated with the Serra 

Fault, San Francisco Peninsula, California: in Kennedy, D.G., and C.S. Hitchcock, eds., AEG Field 

Trip Guide Book Seismic Hazard of the Range Front Thrust Faults Northeastern Santa Cruz 

Mountains/ Southwestern Santa Clara Valley, pp. 4-1 to 4-9. 

Highland, L. M. and P. Bobrowsky, 2008. The Landslide Handbook—A Guide to Understanding 

Landslides. USGS Circular 1345. 

Johnson, R. B., and J. V. DeGraff, 1988. Principles of Engineering Geology. New York: John 

Wiley & Sons. 

Kennedy, D. G., 2002. Neotectonic Character of the Serra fault, Northern San Francisco Peninsula, 

California: unpublished M.S. thesis, San Francisco State University, 117 pp. 

Kennedy, D. G., and C. S. Hitchcock, 2004. Seismic Hazard of the Range Front Thrust Faults, 

Northeastern Santa Cruz Mountains/Southwestern Santa Clara Valley: An Overview: in 

Kennedy, D.G., and C.S. Hitchcock, eds., AEG Field Trip Guide book Seismic Hazard of the 

Range Front Thrust Faults Northeastern Santa Cruz Mountains/Southwestern Santa Clara Valley. 

pp. 1-6. 

Knudsen, K. L., J. M. Sowers, R. C. Witter, C. M. Wentworth, and E. J. Helley, 2005. Preliminary 

Mapping of Quaternary Deposits and Liquefaction Susceptibility, Nine-County San Francisco 

Bay Region, California. United States Geological Survey Open-File Report 00-444. Scale 1:275,000. 

NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service), 2009. Web Soil Survey, San Mateo County 

Eastern Part and San Francisco County [map and data 2004, 2008] and San Mateo County Area 

[map and data 2006–2007]. Available online at: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/ 

WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed July 2009. Accessed July 2009. 

Norris, R. M., and R. W. Webb, 1990. Geology of California, 2nd Ed. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 

Pampeyan, E. H., 1994. Geologic Map of the Montara Mountain and San Mateo 7-½-foot 

Quadrangles, San Mateo County, California: U.S. Geological Survey Map I-2390, 1:24,000. 

Plafker, G. and J. P. Galloway, 1989. Lessons Learned from the Loma Prieta, California 

Earthquake of October 17, 1989. U.S. Government Printing Office. 

Real, C. R., T. R. Toppozada, and D. L. Parke, 1978. Earthquake Catalog of California, January 1, 

1900–December 31, 1974, California Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 52. 







5.15 Geology 


Crystal Springs/San Andreas Transmission Upgrade Project, Final Environmental Impact Report, 

Case No. 2007.1255E. May. 

SFPUC (San Francisco Public Utilities Commission), 2006. General Seismic Requirements for 

Design of New Facilities and Upgrade of Existing Facilities. August 15. 

Tinsley, J. C., T. L. Youd, D. M. Perkins, and A. T. F. Chen, 1985. Evaluating Liquefaction 

Potential in Evaluating Earthquake Hazards in the Los Angeles Region—An earth science 

perspective. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1360:263–315. 

Toppozada, T. R., C. R. Real, and D. L. Parke, 1981. Preparation of Isoseismal Maps and 

Summaries of Reported Effects for Pre-1900 California Earthquakes. California Division of Mines 

and Geology Open-File Report 81-11, 182 pp. 

Toppozada, T. R., and D. L. Parke, 1982. Areas Damaged by California Earthquakes, 1900–1949. 

California Division of Mines and Geology Open-File Report 82-17, 65 pp. 

Toppozada, T. R., J. H. Bennett, C. L. Hallstrom, and L. G. Youngs, 1992. 1898 “Mare Island” 

Earthquake at the Southern end of the Rodger Creek Fault. Pages 385–392 in G. Borchardt et al. 

(eds.). Proceedings of the second conference on earthquake hazards in the eastern San Francisco 

Bay Area. California Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 113. 

Toppozada, T. R., and G. Borchardt, 1998. Re-evaluation of the 1836 “Hayward Fault” and the 

1838 San Andreas Fault Earthquakes. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 88(1):140– 

159. 

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture)/SCS (Soil Conservation Service), 1991. Soil Survey of San 

Mateo County, Eastern Part, and San Francisco County, California. 

USGS (U.S. Geological Survey), 2003. Earthquake Probabilities in the San Francisco Bay Region: 

2002–2031. Open-File Report 03-214. Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities. 

USGS (U.S. Geological Survey) and CGS (California Geological Survey), 2008. The Uniform 

California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, Version 2 (UCERF 2). Open-File Report 2007-1437; CGS 

Special Report 203. 2007 Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities. 

Wagner, D. L., E. J. Bortugno, and R. D. McJunkin, 1990. Geologic Map of the San Francisco–San 

Jose Quadrangle, Scale 1:250,000. (Regional Geologic Map Series, Map No. 5A.) Sacramento, CA: 

California Division of Mines and Geology. 

Wentworth, C. M., S. E. Graham, R. J. Pike, G. S. Beukelman, D. W. Ramsey, and A. D. Barron, 

1997. Summary Distribution of Slides and Earth Flows in the San Francisco Bay Region, 

California. GIS database for USGS Open-File Report 97-745 Part C. 

Youd, T. L., and D. M. Perkins, 1978. Mapping Liquefaction Induced Ground Failure Potential. In 

Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering 

Division. 





This section describes existing surface water and groundwater features in the vicinity of the 

proposed Peninsula Pipelines Seismic Upgrade (PPSU) project and evaluates the potential 

hydrology and water quality impacts of the proposed project. Mitigation measures to avoid or 

reduce adverse impacts are identified, as appropriate. 


This section describes the setting, including San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) 

water supply facilities and operations related to surface water and groundwater hydrology, and 

water quality resources that could be affected by the proposed project. 

5.16.1.1 Regional Hydrology 

The study area lies within the San Francisco Bay hydrologic region, which covers an area of 

approximately 4,603 square miles extending from southern Santa Clara County north to 

Tomales Bay in Marin County, and inland to the confluence of the Sacramento and San Joaquin 

rivers (RWQCB, 2010). Rivers and streams in the region flow to San Francisco Bay or directly to 

the Pacific Ocean. The dominant feature is San Francisco Bay, where fresh water from the 

Central Valley mixes with saline water from the Pacific Ocean. Along the San Francisco 

Peninsula, watershed boundaries are formed by natural topographic divides or engineered 

structures that have altered natural drainage patterns, such as dams, engineered channels, and 

major roadways. 

5.16.1.2 Study Area Hydrology 

The project sites are located within three watersheds, as shown on Figures 5.16-1 and 5.16-2, and 

as described below. The characteristics of the watersheds are summarized in Table 5.16-1. 

Colma Creek Watershed 

The Colma and South San Francisco sites and the common staging area are located within the 

Colma Creek Watershed. The Colma Creek watershed includes portions of San Bruno Mountain, 

as well as urbanized areas of Daly City, Colma, and South San Francisco. Most of this urbanized 

creek is channelized and/or conveyed underground to allow for urban development. An 

unnamed culverted tributary to Colma Creek extends through the Colma site; and a culverted 

portion of Twelve Mile Creek, also a tributary to Colma Creek, extends through the South San 

Francisco site. Colma Creek is a flood control channel maintained by the San Mateo County 

Department of Public Works that discharges into San Francisco Bay north of the San Francisco 

International Airport. No creeks, wetlands, or other surface water features are present in the 

immediate vicinity of the common staging area (SF Planning, 2008). 



COLMA SITE 


Colma Creek 

Watershed 

Colma Creek 

Twelve Mi 

le Creek 

Edgemar 

Watershed 


vsa/ed U:\GIS\SFPUC_Peninsula_Pipeline\Projects\EIR\ADEIR2\Fig5_16_1_hydrology_north_sites.mxd 10/4/2012 5:28:28 PM 

Present flow network 

Creek 

Engineered channels 

!!!!!!!! 

Underground storm drain 

Engineered lake 

Historical features, circa 1850 

Creeks - buried or drained 

Willow grove 

Historical lake 


Creek 

Watershed 

Project site 

$ 

Present watersheds 

Note: Flow network shown drains to San Francisco Bay. 

0 1,000 2,000 

Feet 

Source: Hydrologic Data, William Lettis and Associates, Inc., 2007. 

HYDROLOGY 

NORTH SITES 




FIGURE 5.16-1

!!!!! 

!!!!! 

!!!! !!!! 

!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! !!! 

Colma 

Creek 

Watershed 

! ! 

!!! !! 

!!! ! !!!!!!! !!!! !!! 

!! !!!! !!!! 

!!!! !!!! !!!! !!!! !!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!! ! !!!!!! 

!!! !!!! !!!! !!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! ! 

!!! !!!!!!!!! 

!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! !!!! !!!!! 

!!!!!!!!!! !!!! !!!!!!!! !!!! !!!! !!!! !!!! !!!!!!!! !!!! !!!!!!!!!! 


San Bruno Creek 

!!!!!!!!! 

!!!!!!! !!!! !!!!! 

!! ! !!!!!!!! !! 

!!! ! 

!!!! !! 

!!!!!!! !!!! !!!! !!!!!!!!! 

!! !! 

!! !! !!!!!! 

!!! !!!! !!!! 

!!! 

!!! !!!!! 

SFO 

Watershed 

!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! !!!! !!!! !!!!!!!!!! 

!!!! !!!!!! 

!! !! 

!!!!!!!!! 

!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!! !!!! !!!! 

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!! !!!! !!!! !! !!!!!! !!!! !!! 

!!!!!!!!!!! !! 

!!! !! 

!!!! 

!! !!!! !! 

!!!!!!! !!!! !!!! !!!! !!!! !!!! !!!!! 


!!! ! !! 

!! !!!! !! !! !!!! !!!! 

!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!! !!!!!!!! ! ! !!!!!! 

!! 

!!!! 

!!! !!!!!!!!! !!!! !!!!!!!! 


Creek 

Watershed 

El Zanjon 

!! !!!!!!! 

!!!! !!!! !!!!!!!!!! !! !!!! !!!! !! 

!! !!!!!!! 

!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!! !!!! !!!! 

!!!!!!!!!!!! 

!!! !! 

!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!! 

!!! !!!!! 

!!! 

!!! !! 

!! 

vsa/ed U:\GIS\SFPUC_Peninsula_Pipeline\Projects\EIR\ERO_DEIR\Fig5_16_2_hydrology_south_sites.mxd 2/12/2013 12:36:22 PM 


Creek 

Watershed 

Present flow network 

Creek 

Engineered channels 

!!!!!!!! Underground storm drain 

Engineered lake 

Historical features, circa 1850 

Creeks - buried or drained 

Tidal marsh and sloughs 

Freshwater marsh 

Historical lake 


Project site 

$ 

Present watersheds 

Note: Flow network shown drains to San Francisco Bay. 

0 1,000 2,000 

Feet 

Sources: Topo Maps USA, 2011 (National Geographic Society); Hydrologic Data, William Lettis and Associates, Inc., 2007. 

MILLBRAE SITE 

!!!!!! 

!!!!!!! ! !!!! 

!!!!!!!! !!!! !!!!!! 

!!! 

!!! 

!!!! 

!!!!! 

!! 

!!!! !!!! !! 

!! !!!! 

!!!! !! 

!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !! 

Green 

Hills Creek 

Watershed 

Green Hills Creek 

!! !!!!! ! !! !!!!!!!!! !!! !! 

!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !! 

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 

!!!!!!!! 

!!!! !!!! ! ! 

!!!!! 

! !!!! !!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!! 

!!! !! 

Millbrae 

Creek 

Watershed 

!! 

!!!! ! 

!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! !!!! !! 

!!!!!! !!!! 

!!! !! 

Millbrae Creek 

!! !!!!!!!! !!!! !!!! 

HYDROLOGY 

SOUTH SITES 




FIGURE 5.16-2



Table 5.16-1 

Creeks and Watersheds in the Study Area 

Creek Name 

Watershed 

Area 

(square 

miles) 

Unmodified 

Channel 

(miles) 

Engineered 

Channel 

(miles) 

Underground 

Culvert or 

Storm Drain 

(miles) 

Channel 

Length 

(miles) 

Surface Water 

Character near 

Project Site 

Colma Creek 15.7 2.7 7.1 49.9 59.7 Underground 

culverts and storm 

drains 


Creek 

Green Hills 

Creek 

4.6 0.8 3.9 9.1 13.8 Underground 


drains 

2.8 0.5 1.8 7.9 10.2 Underground 


drains 

Sources: SMCWPPP, 2007; SFBAC, 2011. 

San Bruno Creek Watershed 

The San Bruno North and San Bruno South sites are located within the San Bruno Creek 

watershed. San Bruno Creek, including its tributaries, originally was an open, natural creek that 

flowed through the City of San Bruno to San Francisco Bay. As a result of urban development, 

the majority of the creeks within the watershed were placed in culverts, channels, and 

underground pipelines. Ultimately, the flow conveyed via the creek system discharges into San 

Francisco Bay north of San Francisco International Airport. 

Green Hills Creek Watershed 

The Millbrae site is located within the Green Hills Creek watershed, which is an urban watershed 

that includes natural creeks, engineered channels, and underground storm drains and culverts 

(see Table 5.16-1). Green Hills Creek and its tributaries drain via the Highline Canal to San 

Francisco Bay south of San Francisco International Airport. 

Please refer to Section 5.14, Biological Resources, for information pertaining wetlands or waters 

of the United States or of the State of California. 

5.16.1.3 Surface Water Quality 

As described above, the project sites are located near urbanized creeks that drain into San 

Francisco Bay. Urban creeks of the San Francisco Bay Region are listed on the State Water 

Resources Control Board (SWRCB) 2002 Monitoring List for trash that could adversely affect 

water quality (SWRCB, 2003b). The amount of trash and litter in these urban creeks can vary 

greatly depending on nearby land uses and proximity to road overcrossings. 

While San Mateo County monitors the water quality of some creeks in the county through the 

San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program (SMCWPPP), in compliance with its 

municipal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit (as described 





below), no detailed studies have been conducted for the Colma Creek, San Bruno Creek, or Green 

Hills Creek watersheds. 

The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), which regulates surface 

water quality in the study area, has established beneficial uses for surface water bodies and 

groundwater in the study area. These beneficial uses are described in the Water Quality Control 

Plan for the San Francisco Bay Region (Basin Plan). While the Basin Plan does not specify 

beneficial uses for Colma Creek, San Bruno Creek, or Green Hills Creek, existing beneficial uses 

for San Francisco Bay (to which these creeks ultimately discharge) include industrial service 

supply, commercial fishing, shellfish harvesting, estuarine habitat, fish migration, navigation, 

rare and endangered species preservation, wildlife habitat, and limited water contact recreation. 

Fish spawning is identified as a potential beneficial use. A detailed discussion of beneficial uses 

and water quality objectives can be found in the Basin Plan (RWQCB, 2010). 

5.16.1.4 Flood Potential 

The Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) prepared by the Federal Emergency Management 

Agency (FEMA) for San Mateo County indicate that the study area is not located in FEMAdesignated 

floodplains (FEMA, 1981a; FEMA, 1981b; Town of Colma, 1999; City of San Bruno, 

2011). 

Additionally, the project sites are not located within a mapped dam failure inundation area 

(ABAG, 2011). 

5.16.1.5 Groundwater 

The Westside Groundwater Basin has a surface area of approximately 45 square miles, and 

extends south from Golden Gate Park in the City of San Francisco to the City of Burlingame 

(DWR, 2006; SFPUC, 2010). The four major geologic units are the Jurassic-Cretaceous Franciscan 

Complex, Pliocene Merced Formation, Pleistocene Colma Formation, and the Pleistocene to 

recent Dune Sands. The primary water-producing aquifers are in the Merced and Colma 

formations. The cities of South San Francisco and San Bruno, among others, use groundwater 

from this basin for potable and nonpotable uses (SFPUC, 2010; WRIME, 2012). 

The Colma and South San Francisco sites and the common staging area overlie the Westside 

Groundwater Basin. The San Bruno North and Millbrae sites are located on the boundary of the 

basin. The San Bruno South site is located west (i.e., outside of the basin). 

The typical groundwater elevations within the Westside Groundwater Basin’s primary 

production aquifer in the vicinity of the project sites are summarized in Table 5.16-2. 

Groundwater elevations noted during the recent geotechnical investigations conducted at the 

project sites are also provided in Table 5.16-2. 


Applicable federal, State, and local laws and policies that govern hydrology, groundwater, and 

water quality in the study area are described below. For a list of specific permits required for 

implementation of the proposed project, refer to Section 3.10, Required Permits. 





Project Site 

Table 5.16-2 

Groundwater Elevations and Depths in the Study Area 

Approximate 

Ground 

Surface 

Elevation 1 

(feet) 

Approximate 

Groundwater 

Elevation of 

Primary 

Production 

Aquifer 

(feet) 

Approximate 

Depth Below 

Ground Surface of 

Primary 

Production 

Aquifer 

(feet) 

Approximate 

Groundwater 

Elevation 

Encountered 

during 

Geotechnical 

Investigation 1 

(feet) 

Approximate 

Depth Below 

Ground Surface of 

Groundwater 

Encountered 

during 

Geotechnical 

Investigation 

(feet) 

Colma 115 -90 205 75 40 




North 2 


South 3 

55 -150 205 -4.5 59.5 

217 -180 397 NA NA 

277 

374 

NA NA 221 

354 

Millbrae 2 279 -160 439 256 23 

Common 

Staging Area 

71 -160 231 43 28 

Sources: SFPUC, 2008; SFPUC, 2010; Geotechnical Consultants, Inc., 2011a and 2011b. 

Notes: 

Elevations are per North American Vertical Datum of 1988. 

1 For the San Bruno South and Millbrae sites, data measured from piezometers installed during 2011 geotechnical 

investigations were used. For the Colma and South San Francisco sites, data measured from piezometers installed 

during 2010 geotechnical investigations were used. For the common staging area, data measured in 2006 during 

geotechnical investigations for the Baden Valve Lot were used. 

2 The San Bruno North and Millbrae sites are located on the Westside Groundwater Basin boundary. 

3 The San Bruno South site is located adjacent to, but not within, the Westside Groundwater Basin boundary. 

NA = not available 

56 

20 


Clean Water Act 

The Clean Water Act of 1972 (CWA) (33 U.S. Code § 1257 et seq.) requires states to set standards 

to protect water quality. The objective of the federal CWA is to restore and maintain the chemical, 

physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters. Specific sections of the CWA control 

discharge of pollutants and wastes into marine and aquatic environments. Section 101 specifies 

the goals and policies of the CWA. Title III (Standards and Enforcement) and Title IV (Permits 

and Licenses) provide further direction regarding the requirements for compliance with the 

objective of the CWA. 

Section 303—Impaired Water Bodies and Total Maximum Daily Loads 

Under Section 303(d) of the CWA, each state is required to develop effluent limitations for waters 

within its boundaries where water quality standards are not met. The state must establish 





priority rankings for these waters and develop Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) to maintain 

its beneficial uses, and improve water quality. Seasonal variations in loading and a margin of 

safety are considered when TMDLs are established. In California, the SWRCB and RWQCBs 

prepare the CWA Section 303(d) List of Water Quality Limited Segments Requiring TMDLs. 

None of the creeks within the study area are included in the SWRCB’s 303(d) list (SMC and EOA, 

Inc., 2009; SWRCB, 2010). San Francisco Bay, however, is listed as impaired for pesticides (e.g., 

chlordane, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, dieldrin, dioxin, and furan compounds), mercury, 

invasive species from ballast water, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, polychlorinated 

biphenyls, selenium, and trash (SWRCB, 2010). 

Section 401 – Clean Water Quality Certification 

Under Section 401 of the CWA, water quality certification is required from the State for any 

activity that requires a federal permit or license, and that may result in discharge into navigable 

waters. The certification must indicate that the activity will comply with the applicable State 

water quality standards. Under Section 401, states are required to establish water quality 

standards for all State waters. To receive certification under Section 401, an application must 

demonstrate that activities or discharges into waters will not cause concentrations of chemicals to 

exceed State standards. The authority to grant water quality certification has been delegated to 

the SWRCB; applications for certification under CWA Section 401 are processed by the San 

Francisco Bay RWQCB. If a Section 404 permit for discharge into waters subject to U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers jurisdiction is needed for the project, a Section 401 Certification will also be necessary. 

Please refer to the Section 5.14, Biological Resources, for information pertaining to State or federal 

jurisdiction of features within the study area. 

Section 402—NPDES Program 

Point source discharges to surface water are regulated by Section 402 of the CWA through 

requirements set forth in specific or general NPDES permits. Stormwater discharges associated with 

construction activities and certain categories of industrial activities, as well as incidental 

nonstormwater discharges associated with construction, fall under this act and are addressed through 

general NPDES permits. In California, requirements of the CWA regarding regulation of point source 

discharges and stormwater discharges are delegated to the SWRCB and administered by the nine 

RWQCBs. The San Francisco Bay RWQCB implements the statewide policy in the project area. Under 

California’s NPDES program, any waste discharger subject to the NPDES program must obtain 

coverage under the appropriate general NPDES permit from the local RWQCB. 

NPDES Permit for the SFPUC Water Transmission System 

Discharges of altered 1 water from the SFPUC water transmission system are regulated by 

RWQCB Order No. R2-2008-0102 (RWQCB, 2008). This order regulates planned discharges from 

routine operations and maintenance that can be scheduled in advance, and unplanned or 

emergency discharges that may occur due to pipeline failures or natural disasters. During 

1 All discharges authorized under Order R2-2008-0102 originate as potable water. Prior to planned discharges, the water 

is treated to remove chlorine and adjust the pH. 





planned discharges, water is treated prior to discharge, and flow rates are controlled using best 

management practices (BMPs) to limit the potential for erosion in receiving waters. Planned 

discharges generally occur at low points along the transmission system. In the event of 

unplanned or emergency discharges, water is treated and BMPs are implemented subsequent to 

site stabilization for public safety. This order was issued pursuant to Section 402 of the CWA and 

Chapter 5.5, Division 7 of the California Water Code. It serves as the NPDES permit for point 

source discharges from, and as waste discharge requirements for, the SFPUC water transmission 

system. 

Flood Insurance Program 

The National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 and the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 were 

passed to decrease the amount of federal spending on flood control structures and disaster relief, 

by restricting development within the floodplain. FEMA is responsible for determining flood 

elevations and developing the FIRMs, which are used in the National Flood Insurance Program 

(NFIP). Participation in the NFIP provides an opportunity for property owners in the community 

to purchase flood insurance, provided that the community complies with FEMA requirements for 

maintaining flood protection and managing development in the floodplain. Within designated 

floodplains, the community must not permit any development, new construction, or 

encroachment that would cause an increase in the 100-year (base) flood elevation. As described in 

Section 5.16.1.4, there are no FEMA-designated floodplains in the study area. 

5.16.2.2 State 

Porter–Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1969 

The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1969 (Porter-Cologne Act) established the 

SWRCB and nine RWQCBs as the primary State agencies with regulatory authority over water 

quality and surface water rights allocation. Requirements of the Porter-Cologne Act are 

implemented by the SWRCB at the State level and the RWQCBs at the regional level. 

The SWRCB, as authorized by the Porter-Cologne Act, promulgated regulations in the California 

Code of Regulations Subchapter 15, Title 23, designed to protect water quality from the effects of 

waste discharges to land. Under Subchapter 15, wastes that cannot be discharged directly or 

indirectly to waters of the State (and therefore must be discharged to land for treatment, storage, 

or disposal) are classified to determine specifically where such wastes may be discharged. This 

classification requirement would apply to dredged material or fill that would be disposed in an 

upland environment. 

Applicable water quality protection regulations include SWRCB Resolution No. 68-16, 

“Statement of Policy with Respect to Maintaining High Quality of Water in California,” which 

generally restricts dischargers from reducing the water quality of surface water and 

groundwater. SWRCB Resolution No. 88-63, “Sources of Drinking Water Policy,” specifies that all 

groundwater occurrences in California are to be protected as existing or potential sources of 

municipal and domestic supply. 

As described above, the study area is within the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay RWQCB, 

and the Basin Plan (RWQCB, 2010) is the applicable plan for the study area. The Basin Plan 





designates beneficial uses for specific surface water and groundwater resources, establishes water 

quality objectives to protect those uses, and sets forth policies to guide the implementation of 

programs to attain the objectives. 

Pursuant to the Porter-Cologne Act, the RWQCB is authorized to issue individual permits to 

allow for discharge of specified quantities and qualities of waste to land or surface waters. The 

limitations placed on the discharge are designed to ensure compliance with water quality 

objectives in the Basin Plan. To obtain a permit, the discharger must submit a Report of Waste 

Discharge, and the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act must be met. All 

dischargers must submit monitoring reports. The RWQCB can use this approach to regulate any 

discharge to surface waters. The discharger would be responsible for providing enough 

information regarding the chemicals and volumes to be discharged and receiving waters to allow 

preparation of a permit. 

NPDES General Construction Stormwater Permit 

Construction activities that disturb one or more acres of land surface are regulated under the 

Statewide NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and 

Land Disturbance Activities (Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ) (SWRCB, 2009). This general permit 

also covers construction activities associated with Linear Underground/Overhead Utility Projects, 

such as installation of underground pipelines; concrete and asphalt cutting and removal; 

trenching, excavation, boring, and drilling; substructure installation; welding, concrete, and/or 

pavement repair or replacement; and stockpile/borrow locations. 

To obtain coverage under the Construction General Permit, the legally responsible person must 

electronically file the Permit Registration Documents, which include a Notice of Intent (NOI), 

Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), risk assessment, site map(s), and drawings, and 

the appropriate permit fee to the SWRCB and RWQCB. 

General Waste Discharge Requirements for Dewatering Activities 

The California SWRCB’s Water Quality Order 2003-003-DWQ, Statewide General Waste 

Discharge Requirements for Discharges to Land with a Low Threat to Water Quality, addresses 

potential discharges of below-threat water quality discharges, which include construction 

dewatering discharges. In accordance with this permit, all dischargers must comply with all 

applicable provisions in the relevant Basin Plan, including any prohibitions and water quality 

objectives governing the discharge. In addition, the discharge of waste may not cause the spread 

of groundwater contamination. Discharges must be made to land owned or controlled by the 

discharger, unless the discharger has a written lease or agreement with the landowner. An NOI 

must be filed with the RWQCB prior to activities that would have below-threat water quality 

discharges (SWRCB, 2003a). 

Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit 

The RWQCB issued Order No. R2-2009-0074, NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 (RWQCB, 2009) for 

the discharge of stormwater runoff from the municipal separate storm sewer systems of 

jurisdictions and entities in the San Francisco Bay Area, including the SMCWPPP, which includes 

the Town of Colma and the cities of South San Francisco, San Bruno, and Millbrae. The Municipal 





Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit prohibits nonstormwater discharges into storm drain 

systems and watercourses, as well as discharges that adversely affect beneficial uses of waters of 

the State. The permit requires the implementation of specific control measures such as BMPs to 

prevent construction site pollutant discharges, or impacts on beneficial uses of receiving waters. 

The proposed project is subject to the requirements of this permit, specifically Provision C.6 

(construction site control) and Provision C.15 (exempted and conditionally exempted discharges). 

5.16.2.3 Local 

San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program 

The SMCWPPP was established in 1990 to limit pollution from stormwater to receiving waters. 

SMCWPPP comprises San Mateo County and the incorporated cities and towns in the county. 

SMCWPPP prioritizes and develops methodologies for municipal maintenance activities, 

industrial and illicit discharge controls, public information and participation, new development 

and construction controls, and watershed assessment and monitoring. The participating 

municipalities share a common NPDES permit (NPDES Permit No. CAS0029921, issued by 

RWQCB Order No. 99-059 on July 21, 1999, amended by Order No. R2-2003-0023 on February 19, 

2003, amended by Order Nos. R2-2004-0060 and R2-2004-0062 on July 21, 2004, and amended by 

Order R2-2007- 0027 on March 14, 2007) (RWQCB, 1999; 2003; 2004a; 2004b; 2007) that requires 

treatment controls for stormwater discharges to prevent adverse effects to water quality of runoff 

entering the storm drainage system and local water bodies, during both construction and 

operation. Measures to minimize, to the maximum extent practicable, impacts to water quality 

resulting from new development and redevelopment projects are described below. 

Development or redevelopment projects that create or replace 10,000 square feet or more of 

impervious surface must incorporate site design measures, source control measures, and lowimpact 

development treatment measures to minimize stormwater pollutant discharges. 

Commonly used treatment measures include vegetated buffer strips, infiltration trenches, and 

extended detention basins. Stormwater treatment measures will be engineered and hydraulically 

sized in accordance with the NPDES permit criteria (SMCWPPP, 2010). The PPSU project would 

not create or replace 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface. 

Projects that create and/or replace 1 acre or more of impervious surface and are located in an area 

susceptible to hydromodification are required to incorporate hydromodification management 

measures, pursuant to the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (NPDES Permit 

No. R2-2009-0074). Hydromodification management measures are design components that 

minimize the change in rate and flow of runoff at a project site when compared to predevelopment 

conditions. All of the project sites are located in areas subject to hydromodification 

management; however, the permit excludes routine maintenance or repair activities, including 

pavement resurfacing, repaving, and road pavement structural section rehabilitation within the 

existing footprint, and any other reconstruction work within a public street or road right-of-way 

(ROW) where both sides of the ROW are developed. The PPSU project would not create or 

replace 1 acre or more of impervious surface; therefore, it would not be subject to the flow and 

volume reduction requirements. 

As of December 1, 2011, stormwater treatment requirements must employ evapotranspiration, 

infiltration, and/or rainwater harvesting and reuse. Where infeasible, biotreatment, such as 





landscape-based treatment with underdrains, may be substituted. The threshold for requiring 

stormwater treatment has been reduced from 10,000 to 5,000 square feet of impervious surface for 

projects involving uncovered parking areas, restaurants, auto service facilities, and retail gasoline 

outlets. The project would not create or replace impervious surfaces that would exceed the 

threshold; therefore, the project would not be subject to these stormwater treatment 

requirements. 




impacts related to hydrology and water quality, but generally considers that implementation of 

the proposed project would have a significant impact on hydrology and water quality if it would: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements; 

Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater 

recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local 

groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to 

a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have 

been granted); 

Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the 

alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in substantial 

erosion or siltation on or off site; 

Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the 

alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of 

surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on or off site; 

Create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned 

stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; 

Otherwise substantially degrade water quality; 

Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard 

Boundary or FIRM or other authoritative flood hazard delineation map; 

Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood 

flows; 

Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, 

including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam; or 

Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving inundation 

by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. 







following significance criteria. Therefore, an impact discussion is not provided for these topics for 

the reasons described below. 


 

 

Violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, substantially alter the 

existing drainage pattern, exceed the capacity of stormwater drainage systems, substantially 

degrade water quality or increase flows due to discharges to surface water. The project entails 

replacement of underground portions of existing pipelines. Once construction is complete, the 

sites would be restored to pre-construction conditions. There would be no substantial changes 

to grading or existing drainage patterns of the site or area. At the Colma site, a portion of the 

unnamed culverted creek that extends through the site would be removed for replacement of 

the pipeline and would be replaced in kind, so that there would be no change in flow 

conveyance and direction of this tributary to Colma Creek. The slight grade change at the South 

Bruno site would not substantially change drainage patterns. The project would not involve the 

construction of substantial new impervious surfaces that would increase the amount of runoff, 

result in erosion or siltation, or affect flooding on or off the site. In addition, the project does not 

involve any new discharge points along the pipeline (such as blow-off valves). Therefore, 

impacts on water quality or flooding due to project operations are not discussed further. These 

significance criteria are discussed below under Impact HY-1, HY-3, and HY-4 only as they 

apply to project construction activities. 

Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge. The 

PPSU project would not use groundwater during operations and it would not create new 

impervious surfaces. The project operations would not deplete groundwater supplies or 

affect groundwater recharge. Therefore, the project would not have long-term impacts to 

groundwater, and this significance criterion is discussed below under Impact HY-2 only as it 

applies to project construction activities. 



 

 

Place structures within a 100-year flood hazard area that would impede or redirect flood 

flows or place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood 

Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map. The project sites are not located in areas 

mapped as 100-year flood hazard areas. The project would not include the construction of 

housing. Therefore, the significance criteria related to the 100-year flood hazard areas are not 

applicable to the proposed project and are not discussed further. 

Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving 

flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam, or inundation by 

seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. The project sites are elevated approximately 50 feet to more 

than 370 feet above San Francisco Bay and the Pacific Ocean, and would not be susceptible to 

seiche or tsunami inundation. The project is not located near geologic or topographic 

conditions that would generate mudflows. There are no levees in the vicinity of the project, 





and the project is not located in a dam inundation zone. Therefore, the significance criteria 

related to flooding, or inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow, are not applicable to the 

proposed project and are not discussed further. 

This analysis evaluates the proposed project’s potential effects on hydrology and water quality during 

project construction. Construction-related effects on hydrology and water quality relate strictly to 

direct and indirect impacts that could occur during construction activities, including site preparation 

and clearing, excavation, dewatering, construction of improvements, and demobilization and site 

restoration. Due to the nature of the project, which entails replacement of underground portions of an 

existing pipeline and restoration of the sites to pre-construction conditions, there are no operational 

impacts associated with the project. There would be no new impervious surface areas, no substantial 

change in grading or drainage patterns, and no new discharges; therefore, operation-related effects on 

hydrology and water quality are not analyzed further. 


The proposed project’s impacts on hydrology and water quality and the resulting significance 

determinations are summarized in Table 5.16-3. 

Table 5.16-3 

Summary of Impacts – Hydrology and Water Quality 

Impacts 

Impact HY-1: Project construction could substantially violate water 

quality standards or waste discharge requirements or degrade 

water quality as a result of erosion and sedimentation or an 

accidental release of hazardous chemicals. 

Impact HY-2: Dewatering of excavated areas during project 

construction would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies 

or substantially interfere with groundwater recharge. 

Impact HY-3: Discharges of dewatering effluent from excavated 

areas during project construction would not substantially degrade 

water quality. 

Impact HY-4: Discharges of treated water from existing and newly 

installed pipelines during project construction would not 

substantially degrade water quality. 

Impact C-HY: Project construction could result in a cumulatively 

considerable contribution to cumulative impacts on hydrology and 

water quality. 

Significance 

Determination 

LSM 

LS 1 

LS 1 

LS 1 

LSM 

Notes: 

1 

The significance determination for the common staging area is No Impact, as described below in the impact 

analysis. 


LSM = Less-than-Significant with Mitigation 






Impact HY-1: Project construction could substantially violate water quality standards 

or waste discharge requirements or degrade water quality as a result of erosion and 

sedimentation or an accidental release of hazardous chemicals. (Less than Significant 


The project would include construction activities that involve soil disturbance that in the absence 

of proper controls could degrade the water quality of nearby creeks that flow to San Francisco 

Bay, particularly if these activities occur during the rainy season. These soil disturbance activities 

include vegetation removal, excavation, soil stockpiling, backfilling, compacting, grading, site 

restoration, and landscaping. While some construction activities are anticipated to occur during 

the spring/summer season, construction at the sites is anticipated to occur during the winter 

(rainy) season. The use of construction equipment could accidentally release oils, grease, and fuel 

that could degrade water quality. The project would use concrete and concrete washout water, 

which if released into waterways would be toxic to fish and aquatic organisms due to its high pH 

and metal constituents. 

Open-trench construction techniques would be used at many of the PPSU project sites (except for 

the work at San Bruno North and for a portion of the work at South San Francisco), as described 

in Chapter 3, Project Description. The new pipeline would be installed in the same general 

location as the existing pipeline. Excavated soils, including topsoil, would be stockpiled during 

construction at each site, and may be reused as backfill, for restoration, and/or off-hauled for 

recycling or disposal. Spoils would be temporarily stored in the SFPUC ROW, either in the area 

designated as the construction zone or in the staging and spoils areas. Construction debris, 

including shoring materials, old pipe materials, and pavement, would be off-hauled as needed 

during construction and once construction is completed. In the absence of proper controls, these 

construction activities could result in erosion and sedimentation. BMPs would be implemented to 

prevent the offsite discharge of sediments and pollutants. 

With the exception of the Colma site, there would be no construction activities in or adjacent to a 

water body. The box culvert that conveys waters of a tributary to Colma Creek across the Colma 

site is located above the existing San Andreas Pipeline No. 2 (SAPL2) pipe. To allow access to 

SAPL2 for construction activities, the portion of the culvert that is located within the trench area for 

SAPL2 may need to be demolished. Construction methods used to collect and discharge the water 

in the culvert during construction may include temporary piping around the demolished culvert 

section, or construction of a cofferdam. If temporary piping is used, flexible piping would be 

installed between the source of the water and a point of discharge—either a storm drain or another 

inlet to the culvert. If a cofferdam is used, a collection liner and shoring—such as sand bags or steel 

and wood—would be installed to collect the water in the culvert. The water would then be pumped 

out and discharged through temporary piping to a storm drain or another inlet to the culvert. In the 

absence of proper controls, these construction activities could result in erosion and sedimentation. 

BMPs would be implemented to prevent discharge of sediments and pollutants into the tributary. 

Once the new water transmission pipe is installed, the culvert would be replaced in kind. 

At the South San Francisco site, construction activities could result in erosion and sedimentation 

if proper controls are not implemented. The jack-and-bore construction method would avoid 





disturbance to the culverted creek by going approximately 10 feet below the bottom of the creek, 

as shown on Figure 3-8. Pits would be excavated at either end of the bore and would be situated 

away from the creek. In addition, BMPs would be implemented to prevent the offsite discharge of 

sediments and pollutants. 

Construction activities at the San Bruno North site would include excavation of two access pits 

above the tunnel (approximately 10 feet wide by 10 feet in length), removal of portions of the 

tunnel roof to gain access to the tunnel, and either the injection of grout to fill the void around the 

pipeline within the tunnel, or the installation of pipe stabilization structures within the tunnel. 

New pipe supports, such as concrete, would be installed within the tunnel. In the absence of 

proper controls, these construction activities could result in erosion and sedimentation. There 

would be no open-trench construction, because there would be no pipeline replacement at this 

site. Although this site is not adjacent to a water body, BMPs would be implemented to prevent 

the offsite discharge of sediments and pollutants. The roof of the tunnel would be repaired once 

tunnel work is completed. The access pits would be backfilled and graded to restore soils to preconstruction 

conditions. 

At each of the project sites, topsoil would be replaced in disturbed areas and re-vegetated with native 

plant seed mix. Vegetation would be monitored for up to a year to ensure it has become established. 

No ground-disturbing activities related to the PPSU project are proposed within the common 

staging area, and this area is not adjacent to a water body. Construction materials would be 

temporarily stored, and good housekeeping measures would be implemented to prevent the 

offsite discharge of pollutants. 

Table 3-1 summarizes the estimated construction work areas in acres for the project. With the 

exception of the San Bruno North site, the estimated construction work area for each of the 

project sites would exceed 1 acre. The combined construction work area for all project sites would 

be approximately 12.25 acres. Because the amount of land disturbance would exceed 1 acre, the 

requirements of the Construction General Permit would apply. For all of these reasons and in the 

absence of proper controls, impacts on water quality due to PPSU construction activities would 

be potentially significant. 

Mitigation Measure M-HY-1: Preparation and Implementation of a Storm Water Pollution 

Prevention Plan would address water quality impacts during construction activities by requiring 

the SFPUC or its contractor to prepare a SWPPP detailing the construction BMPs that would be 

implemented during construction to control erosion and sedimentation of receiving water bodies, 

and minimize the risk of hazardous material release to surface water bodies. Therefore, this 

impact would be less than significant with mitigation. 

Mitigation Measure M-HY-1: Preparation and Implementation of a Storm Water 

Pollution Prevention Plan 


In accordance with the Construction General Permit, the SFPUC or its contractor(s) 

would submit the required notices, prepare a SWPPP, and implement site-specific BMPs 

to control and reduce discharges of sediments and pollutants associated with 

construction stormwater runoff that could discharge to storm drains or creeks. 





BMPs would include, but are not limited, to the following. 

Scheduling 

 

 

 

Schedule construction to minimize ground disturbance during the rainy season to 

the extent practicable. 

Install erosion and sediment control BMPs prior to the start of any ground-disturbing 

activities. 

Provide plans to stabilize soil with vegetation or physical means in the event that 

rainfall is expected. Stabilize all disturbed soils as soon as possible following the 

completion of soil-disturbing activities. 

Erosion and Sedimentation 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Install silt fences or fiber rolls, or implement other suitable measures around the 

perimeters of the construction zone, staging areas, temporary stockpiles, and 

drainage features. 

Use filter fabric or other appropriate measures to prevent sediment from entering 

storm drain inlets. 

When dewatering, regulate discharge rate, use energy dissipation device(s), and 

install sediment barriers, as necessary, to prevent erosion, streambed scour, 

suspension of sediments, or excessive streamflow. 

Detain and treat water produced by construction site dewatering using 

sedimentation basins, sediment traps (when water is flowing and there is sediment), 

or other measures, to ensure that discharges to receiving waters meet applicable 

water quality objectives. 

Locate stockpiles a minimum of 50 feet away from concentrated flows of stormwater, 

water bodies, ditches, and inlets. Contain all stockpiles using perimeter controls such 

as berms, dikes, fiber rolls, silt fences, sandbag, gravel bags, or straw bale barriers. 

Cover all stockpiles with visqueen or other impermeable materials. 

Preserve existing vegetation in areas where no construction activity is planned or 

where construction activity will occur at a later date. 

Stabilize and revegetate disturbed areas as soon as possible after construction by 

planting or seeding and/or using mulch (e.g., straw or hay, erosion control blankets, 

hydromulch, or other similar material). 

Nonstormwater Control 

 

Prevent raw cement, concrete or concrete washings, asphalt, paint or other coatings, 

and oils or other petroleum products from entering watercourses or storm drains. If 

possible, all concrete waste and wash water should be returned with each concrete 

truck for disposal at the concrete batch plant. 





 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Locate the entrance and exit pit at each end of the jack-and-bore construction area at 

least 10 feet from the creek, ditch, or canal. 

Cofferdam materials used to create dams upstream and downstream of diversion 

should be erosion-resistant and could include materials such as steel plate, sheetpile, 

sandbags, continuous berms, inflatable or water bladders. 

Keep construction vehicles and equipment clean; do not allow excessive buildup of 

oil and grease. 

Check construction vehicles and equipment daily at startup for leaks, and repair any 

leaks immediately. 

To prevent run-on and runoff and to contain spills, do not refuel vehicles and 

equipment within 100 feet of surface waters. 

Conduct all refueling and servicing of equipment with absorbent material or drip 

pans underneath to contain spilled fuel. Collect any fluid drained from machinery 

during servicing in leak-proof containers and deliver to an appropriate disposal or 

recycling facility. 

Contain fueling areas to prevent run-on and runoff and to contain spills. 

Tracking Controls 

 

 

Grade and stabilize construction site entrances and exits to prevent runoff from the 

site, and to prevent erosion. 

Employ street sweeping to remove any soil or sediment tracked off paved roads 

during construction. 

Waste Management and Hazardous Materials Pollution Controls 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Control the discharge of pollutants in stormwater from vehicles and equipment by 

using drip pans, spill kits, berms, and secondary containment. 

Remove trash and construction debris from the project area regularly. Provide an 

adequate number of waste containers with lids or covers to keep rain out of the 

containers, and to prevent trash and debris from being blown away during high 

winds. 

Locate sanitary facilities a minimum of 200 feet from creeks. 

Ensure the containment of sanitation facilities (e.g., portable toilets) to prevent 

discharges of pollutants to the stormwater drainage system or receiving water. 

Maintain sanitary facilities regularly. 

Store all hazardous materials in an area protected from rainfall and stormwater runon, 

and prevent the offsite discharge of leaks or spills. 





 

 

 

Minimize the potential for contamination of surface water bodies by maintaining 

spill containment and cleanup equipment onsite, and by properly labeling and 

disposing of hazardous wastes. 

Inspect dumpsters and other waste and debris containers regularly for leaks, and 

remove and properly dispose of any hazardous materials and liquid wastes placed in 

these containers. 

Train construction personnel in proper material delivery, handling, storage, cleanup, 

and disposal procedures. 

BMP Inspection, Maintenance, and Repair 

 

 

 

 

 

Inspect all BMPs on a regular basis to confirm proper installation and function. 

Inspect all stormwater BMPs daily during storms. 

Inspect sediment basins, sediment traps, and other detention and treatment facilities 

regularly throughout the construction period. 

Provide sufficient devices and materials (e.g., silt fence, fiber rolls, and erosion 

blankets) throughout project construction to enable immediate repair or replacement 

of failed BMPs. 

Inspect all seeded areas regularly for failures, and remediate or repair as soon as 

feasible. 

Permitting, Monitoring, and Reporting 

 

 

 

 

 

Provide the required documentation for SWPPP inspections, maintenance, and repair 

requirements. 

Maintain written records of inspections, spills, BMP-related maintenance activities, 

corrective actions, and visual observations of any offsite discharge of sediment or 

other pollutants, as required by the RWQCB. 

Monitor water quality to assess the effectiveness of control measures. 

Notify the RWQCB and other agencies as required (e.g., California Department of 

Fish and Wildlife) if the criteria for turbidity, oil/grease, or foam are exceeded, and 

undertake corrective actions. 

Immediately notify the RWQCB and other agencies as required (e.g., California 

Department of Fish and Wildlife) of any spill of petroleum products or other organic 

or earthen materials, and undertake corrective action. 

Post-Construction BMPs 

 

 

Revegetate all temporarily disturbed areas as required after construction activities 

are completed. 

Remove any remaining construction debris and trash from the project area and 

staging areas upon project completion. 





 

 

 

Phase the removal of temporary BMPs as necessary to ensure stabilization of the site. 

Maintain post-construction site conditions to avoid any unintended drainage 

channels, erosion, or areas of sedimentation. 

Correct post-construction site conditions as necessary to comply with the SWPPP and 

any other pertinent RWQCB requirements. 

Impact HY-2: Dewatering of excavated areas during project construction would not 

substantially deplete groundwater supplies or substantially interfere with groundwater 

recharge. (Less than Significant) 

During construction, dewatering may be required for groundwater, rainwater, or other water 

that enters the trenches and pits. Dewatering could lower the water table of shallow groundwater 

zones temporarily and deplete groundwater supplies. 

Groundwater elevations and depths in the study area are summarized in Table 5.16-2. 

Groundwater associated with the primary production aquifer is more than 200 feet below the 

ground surface at all of the project sites; therefore, none of the construction activities, including 

dewatering, would be expected to impact the primary production aquifer. 

Based on the approximate elevation and depth of groundwater encountered during geotechnical 

investigations and the anticipated excavation depths, substantial quantities of groundwater requiring 

dewatering would not be anticipated, because the expected maximum depth of excavation is 

generally less than the depth to the shallow groundwater (see Table 5.16-4). Of the five project sites, 

excavation at the South Bruno South site is most likely to encounter shallow groundwater. However, 

actual groundwater elevations at the sites may fluctuate depending on the time of the year (e.g., 

summer versus winter) and type of year (e.g., dry versus wet), as well as site-specific conditions. 

Groundwater extracted during construction of the project, if any, would be temporary and localized, 

and any effects from the lowering of groundwater levels or depletion of groundwater resources 

would be temporary, because once construction was completed, dewatering would cease. 

Table 5.16-4 

Comparison between Depth to Shallow Groundwater and Expected Depth of Excavation 

Project Site 

Approximate Depth to shallow 

groundwater (feet bgs) 1 

Expected Maximum Depth of 

Excavation (feet bgs) 

Colma 40 16 

South San Francisco 59.5 30 

San Bruno North >217 10 

San Bruno South 20 – 56 32 

Millbrae 23 18 

Sources: SFPUC, 2008; SFPUC, 2010; Geotechnical Consultants, Inc., 2011a and 2011b. 

Notes: 

1 Based on elevations shown in Table 5.16-2. 

bgs = below ground surface 





At the South San Francisco Site, jack-and-bore techniques would be used to jack a steel casing 

underneath Westborough Boulevard, into which the new pipe would be installed. The pipeline 

would be installed at depths ranging from approximately 11 feet to 30 feet below ground surface 

(bgs), and would extend under the existing creek culvert. Because the depth to shallow 

groundwater at this site is expected to be approximately 59.5 feet bgs, groundwater dewatering 

would not be anticipated as part of the jack-and-bore installation. 

There is an irrigation water supply well on California Golf Club of San Francisco property, near 

the South San Francisco site. This well is located north of Westborough Boulevard, and 

approximately 150 feet southwest of the project site. The screen interval of the well is more than 

250 feet below ground surface (Fugro, 2012), which corresponds to the approximate depth of the 

primary production aquifer in this area (calculated as 205 feet below ground surface, as shown in 

Table 5.16-2). The screen interval of a well is the portion of the well that is open to groundwater 

inflow from the aquifer. 

The regional groundwater flow direction in the vicinity of the project site is generally toward the 

east, based on February 2010 groundwater monitoring data for a former Standard Oil Substation 

site approximately mile east of the South San Francisco site (CRA, 2010). Therefore, the golf 

course’s well is located upgradient from the construction zone and would not be affected by 

activities associated with the South San Francisco site. Also, due to the depth of the primary 

production aquifer (205 feet bgs) in relation to the maximum depth of the project’s tunneling 

(30 feet bgs), operation of the well would not be affected. 

At the common staging area, the project would not entail excavation, and no dewatering would 

be associated with project activities at the site. Therefore, because the project would not cause any 

impacts related to this significance criterion, there would be no impact at the common staging 

area. 

Therefore, groundwater dewatering would not be expected to substantially deplete groundwater 

resources or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, and impacts related to the 

depletion of groundwater resources or interference with groundwater recharge would be less 


Impact HY-3: Discharges of dewatering effluent from excavated areas during project 

construction would not substantially degrade water quality. (Less than Significant) 

The proposed project would involve construction dewatering, with potential discharges to a 

surface water body, storm sewer system, or sanitary sewer system. During construction, trenches 

and pits would be open for short periods of time and would collect water, especially if left open 

during rain events. Dewatering may be required for groundwater, rainwater, or other water that 

enters the trenches and pits. 

Water that is pumped out of the trench or pit would be stored, tested, and treated to meet 

required standards, then discharged to a nearby sanitary sewer, stormwater culvert, creek, or 

overland. Construction dewatering associated with the project would be temporary and have a 

short duration. 





The construction contractor would be responsible for requesting a permit from the appropriate 

wastewater agency prior to discharge to the sanitary sewer. Discharge of water from dewatering 

activities must be performed in accordance with the requirements of the Statewide General 

Construction Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activity issued by 

the SWRCB, the SWRCB’s NPDES General Permit (Order 2003-0003 DWQ) for below-threat 

water quality discharges to land, and municipal stormwater permits (such as Provision C.15 of 

Order R2-2009-0074). 

At the common staging area no excavation and no dewatering would be required. Therefore, 

because the project would not cause any impacts related to this significance criterion, there 

would be no impact at the common staging area. 

With implementation of control measures in compliance with NPDES and local agency 

permitting requirements, potential water quality impacts related to construction discharges 


Impact HY-4: Discharges of treated water from existing and newly installed pipelines 

during project construction would not substantially degrade water quality. (Less than 

Significant) 

Construction-related discharges of treated water would be required during pipeline shutdown 

and startup activities. Pipeline shutdown activities would primarily entail dewatering of pipeline 

sections, prior to pipeline construction activities. Pipeline startup activities, including hydrostatic 

testing and disinfection, would be completed prior to operation of the pipelines following 

installation. These discharges could adversely affect water quality of receiving water bodies. 

The portions of the pipeline system to be replaced as part of the project contain water that has 

been chlorinated or chloraminated. Discharge of this treated water could degrade the quality of 

water bodies and affect aquatic organisms. In addition, the rate of the discharge could result in 

erosion in the receiving water. 

During pipeline shutdown, water would be drained from sections of the pipelines and would be 

discharged to the nearest storm drain system, open channel, natural creek, or overland in 

accordance with the San Francisco RWQCB Waste Discharge Requirements of Order 

No. R2-2008-0102 (RWQCB, 2008), which stipulates requirements related to discharges of water 

from the SFPUC’s water transmission system, including dechlorination requirements, flow rates, 

effluent limitations, and monitoring. For planned discharges such as for pipeline shutdown, 

water would be dechlorinated prior to discharge through the addition of treatment chemicals 

such as sodium bisulfite and calcium thiosulfate. As shown in Table 3-3, an estimated 5.4 million 

gallons of water would be discharged from the pipeline sections during dewatering. The 

shutdown of SAPL2 would occur simultaneously at the Colma, South San Francisco, San Bruno 

North, and San Bruno South sites. Project-related discharges would typically occur over an 

approximately 1-week period, and flow rates would be controlled (typically less than or equal to 

3,500 gallons per minute) using BMPs to limit potential erosion and discharge of sediment to 

receiving waters. The water would be dispersed by an energy dissipation device to minimize 

erosion. Water discharged over land would be directed through containment structures such as 

straw bale structures and filter bags. The discharge rate would be regulated using valves, and the 

discharge would be monitored for residual materials being flushed from the tested pipe. The 





discharges would occur at low spots along the transmission system and would be conducted in 

compliance with the effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, and reporting procedures of 

Order No. R2-2008-0102, the SFPUC’s Erosion Control Standard Operating Procedure (RMC 

Water and Environment, 2008), and the SFPUC’s Policies and Procedures for Transmission 

System Discharges (SFPUC, 2009a). 

Prior to startup, the SFPUC would perform hydrostatic testing and disinfection of the pipes. 

Hydrostatic testing, which is used to verify the structural integrity of the pipeline, entails filling 

sections of the pipeline with clean water, maintaining a test pressure in excess of normal 

operating pressures for a specified period of time (typically 8 hours), and then discharging the 

water. The source of the water to be used for hydrostatic testing of the pipelines would be SFPUC 

potable water. The hydrostatic testing will be performed on new pipelines. No chemicals will be 

added to the test water for the purpose of the hydrostatic testing. As such, the expected quality of 

the test water will be similar to the quality of the source water, which will be the same water 

quality that would be discharged during shutdown operations. 

Hydrostatic testing would be completed independently for each segment of pipeline replaced, 

except for SAPL2 at both the San Bruno North and San Bruno South sites, which would be tested 

concurrently. An estimated total of 0.6 million gallons of hydrostatic test water would be used 

and discharged. The hydrostatic test water would be discharged to the nearest storm drain 

system, open channel, natural creek, or overland in accordance with the San Francisco RWQCB’s 

Waste Discharge Requirements of Order No. R2-2008-0102 (RWQCB, 2008) or with the SWRCB’s 

NPDES General Permit (Order 2003-0003 DWQ) for low-threat water quality discharges to land. 

BMPs to limit potential erosion and discharge of sediment to receiving waters would be 

implemented, and would be similar to those described above for pipeline shutdown discharges. 

After hydrostatic testing, and prior to distribution of water through the pipelines, disinfection 

would be completed. Disinfection of the pipeline typically requires 1 week and includes filling, 

disinfecting, flushing, dechlorinating, and taking water samples from the disinfected pipelines 

for bacteriological analysis and residuals management, in compliance with the SFPUC’s Sanitary 

Work Practices and Disinfection (SFPUC, 2009b). Water from the disinfection process would then 

be discharged from the pipe sections in a similar manner and in accordance with the same 

requirements as described above for discharges associated with pipeline shutdown and 

hydrostatic testing. 

For the common staging area, there would be no construction-related discharges of treated water 

from pipe shutdown, hydrostatic testing, or disinfection. Therefore, there would be no impact at 


Discharges of treated water from existing and newly installed pipelines during project 

construction would not exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems 

or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Water quality impacts related to 

these construction discharges would be less than significant with implementation of control 

measures in compliance with NPDES permit requirements and the requirements of other 

regulatory agencies. 








conditions, there would be no impact associated with operation of the project. 


Impact C-HY: Project construction could result in a cumulatively considerable 

contribution to cumulative impacts on hydrology and water quality. (Less than 


The geographic scope for potential cumulative hydrology and water quality impacts consists of 

the five project sites, the common staging area, and the watersheds in which these sites are 

located. As described above, the proposed project is located in the Colma Creek, San Bruno 

Creek, and Green Hills Creek watersheds. The development projects considered for the 

cumulative impact analysis are summarized in Section 5.1.3, Cumulative Impacts, and listed in 

Table 5.1-1. 

Violate Water Quality Standards or Waste Discharge Requirements 

Other reasonably foreseeable development projects could also result in temporary and 

permanent impacts to water quality, and potentially exceed applicable water quality standards. 

Temporary impacts may result from land clearing, site disturbance, and grading associated with 

construction activities. Typical construction impacts include increased erosion, sediment 

transport, siltation, and onsite storage and use of lubricants and fuels. Temporary construction 

impacts could be minimized through use of project-specific BMPs and applicable federal, State, 

and local construction mitigation guidelines. Permanent water quality impacts could result from 

stormwater runoff from newly constructed impervious surfaces associated with developments. 

The Regional Groundwater Storage and Recovery (GSR) project includes drilling of new 

groundwater wells within the vicinity of the PPSU Colma and South San Francisco sites and the 

common staging area. Currently it is anticipated that there will be overlap in the construction 

schedules between the GSR and PPSU projects. Both the GSR project and the PPSU project have 

the potential to degrade water quality as a result of construction-related soil erosion, discharge of 

dewatering water, or accidental discharges of hazardous materials into receiving water bodies. 

Together, these projects could contribute to significant cumulative construction-related impacts 

from violations of water quality standards and discharge requirements. 

The PPSU project is located within San Mateo County, and would be subject to mandatory adherence 

to the NPDES General Construction Permit Requirements and the Waste Discharge Requirements for 

the SFPUC Drinking Water Transmission System (RWQCB Order No. R2-2008-0102), as well as with 

implementation of Mitigation Measure M-HY-1: Preparation and Implementation of a SWPPP. 

The waste discharge requirements specify that water is discharged in a manner that does not 

harm natural ecosystems: that the water is treated prior to planned discharges to remove 

chemicals harmful to natural environments; flow rates are controlled using BMPs to limit the 

potential for erosion in receiving waters; and monitoring to ensure requirements are achieved. In 

addition, preparation and implementation of a SWPPP would protect water quality during 





construction, through implementation of BMPs at the project sites to control erosion and limit 

sedimentation of receiving water bodies, as well as minimize the risk of hazardous material 

release to surface water bodies. Therefore, the project’s residual contribution to surface water 

quality impacts would not be cumulatively considerable, and impacts would be less than 


Deplete Groundwater Supplies/Interfere with Groundwater Recharge 

Construction of the cumulative projects may entail dewatering required for groundwater that 

enters excavations, trenches, and pits, which could have a cumulatively significant impact related 

to the depletion of groundwater resources. The GSR project—which entails the construction of 

multiple groundwater wells on the San Francisco Peninsula, with operation of the project 

increasing groundwater storage during wet and normal rainfall years and pumping groundwater 

during dry years—could affect groundwater supplies. In addition, projects that create substantial 

amounts of impervious surfaces could interfere with groundwater recharge. For example, 

additional impervious surfaces resulting from the Harry Tracy Water Treatment Plant Long- 

Term Improvements project or the construction of 599 Cedar Avenue (14 single-family homes) 

could potentially limit groundwater recharge. 

As discussed under Impact HY-2, groundwater dewatering for the PPSU project would not be 

expected to substantially deplete groundwater resources or interfere substantially with 

groundwater recharge. Groundwater extracted during construction, if any, would be temporary 

and localized, and any effects from the lowering of groundwater levels or depletion of groundwater 

resources would be temporary, because once construction was completed, dewatering would cease. 

The PPSU project would not prevent groundwater recharge, because it would not result in the 

construction of substantial amounts of additional impervious surfaces. Therefore, the PPSU 

project’s contribution to impacts related to the depletion of groundwater resources would not be 

cumulatively considerable (less than significant). 

Discharge of Dewatering Effluent or Treated Water that Degrades Water Quality 

Construction of the cumulative projects would entail discharge of dewatered effluent such as 

rainwater or groundwater that enters project excavations. Projects such as 599 Cedar Avenue, 

Parkside Intermediate School, and the Millbrae Safeway Store may require dewatering of 

groundwater, rainwater, or other water that enters excavations, trenches and pits. The discharge 

of this groundwater extracted during construction of these projects could degrade water quality of 

the receiving water body. However, it is expected that existing programs, policies, and regulatory 

requirements would prevent and/or minimize the potential cumulative water quality impacts. 

Most of the cumulative projects would be subject to the Construction General Permit 

requirements, and would be required to implement BMPs to protect water quality during 

construction, including measures to avoid water quality impacts related to dewatering discharges 

from excavated areas. It is assumed that the sponsors of cumulative projects would comply with 

applicable requirements of the Construction General Permit. As discussed under Impact HY-3 

and Impact HY-4, discharge of groundwater or treated water from the PPSU project would not be 

expected to adversely impact water quality. 

The PPSU discharges would be completed in accordance with the San Francisco RWQCB’s Waste 

Discharge Requirements of Order No. R2-2008-0102 (RWQCB, 2008) and with the SWRCB’s 





NPDES General Permit (Order 2003-0003 DWQ) for below-threat water quality discharges to 

land. Water quality impacts related to PPSU construction discharges would be reduced with 

implementation of control measures in compliance with NPDES permit requirements and the 

requirements of other regulatory agencies. Therefore, potential cumulative impact on water 

quality due to discharges of water from the cumulative projects would be less than significant. 


ABAG (Association of Bay Area Governments), 2011. Dam Failure Inundation Hazard Map for 

South San Francisco/Brisbane/San Bruno; Dam Failure Inundation Hazard Map for Burlingame/ 

Millbrae/Hillsborough. Available online at: http://www.abag.ca.gov/cgi-bin/pickdamx.pl. 

Accessed May 16, 2011. 

City of San Bruno, 2011. Flood Zone Information for Entire City Based on Panel Number 06326B 

Dated March 30, 1981. Available online at: http://sanbruno.ca.gov/comdev_planningMain.html. 

Accessed May 11, 2011. 

CRA (Conestoga-Rovers & Associates), 2010. Well Installation Report and First Quarter 2010 

Groundwater Monitoring Report, former Standard Oil Substation 30-9379, 972 El Camino Real, 

South San Francisco, California, San Mateo County Site #550196. March 9. 

DWR (California Department of Water Resources), 2006. California’s Groundwater, Bulletin 118. 

Updated January 20. 

FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency), 1981a. Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for 

City of Millbrae, San Mateo County, California. Community Panel Number 0650450002. 

September 30. 

FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency), 1981b. Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for 

City of South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California. Community Panel Number 

0650620001B. September 2. 

Fugro, 2012. TM 10-7, SFPUC Regional Groundwater Storage and Recovery Project; South 

Westside Basin Third-Party Well Survey and Well Interference Analysis. April. 

Geotechnical Consultants, Inc., 2011a. Final Geotechnical Data Report, Peninsula Pipelines 

Seismic Upgrade (CS-101), San Mateo County, California. March. 

Geotechnical Consultants, Inc., 2011b. Final Addendum to the Geotechnical Data Report, 

Peninsula Pipelines Seismic Upgrade (CS-101),CS-101, SF10016C. November. 

RMC Water and Environment, 2008. Water Transmission NPDES Technical Support Services, 

Erosion Control Standard Operating Procedure. Technical Memorandum Reference 

No. 0092-004.09. July 16. 

RWQCB (Regional Water Quality Control Board), 1999. San Francisco Bay Region, San Mateo 

Countywide NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permit Amendment, Order No. R2-1999-059, NPDES 

Permit No. CAS0029921. July 21. 






Countywide NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permit Amendment, Order No. R2-2003-0023, 

Amending Order No. 99-059, NPDES Permit No. CAS0029921. February 19. 

RWQCB (Regional Water Quality Control Board), 2004a. San Francisco Bay Region, San Mateo 


Amending Order No. 99-059, NPDES Permit No. CAS0029921. July 21. 

RWQCB (Regional Water Quality Control Board), 2004b. San Francisco Bay Region, San Mateo 


Amending Order No. 99-059, NPDES Permit No. CAS0029921. July 21. 



Amending Order No. 99-059, NPDES Permit No. CAS0029921. March 14. 

RWQCB (Regional Water Quality Control Board), 2008. Order No. R2-2008-0102, NPDES 

No. CA0038857, Waste Discharge Requirements for the San Francisco Public Utilities 

Commission Drinking Water Transmission System, December. 

RWQCB (Regional Water Quality Control Board), 2009. San Francisco Bay Region, Municipal 

Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit Order R2-2009-0074, NPDES Permit No. CAS612008. 

October 14. 

RWQCB (Regional Water Quality Control Board), 2010. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) 

for the San Francisco Bay Region. December 31. 




SFBAC (San Francisco Bay Area Creeks), San Bruno Creek Watershed and Green Hills Creek 

Watershed Maps. 2011. Available online at: http://www.museumca.org/creeks. Accessed: May 8, 

2011. 

SFPUC (San Francisco Public Utilities Commission), 2008. 2007 Annual Groundwater Monitoring 

Report, Westside Basin, San Francisco and San Mateo Counties, California. April. 

SFPUC (San Francisco Public Utilities Commission), 2009a. Water Supply and Treatment Division 

Policies and Procedures Transmission System Discharges. Last revision August 21. 

SFPUC (San Francisco Public Utilities Commission), 2009b. Technical Specifications Division 01: 

General Requirements 01565: Sanitary Work Practices And Disinfection. October 1. 

SFPUC (San Francisco Public Utilities Commission), 2010. Final – 2009 Annual Groundwater 

Monitoring Report, Westside Basin, San Francisco and San Mateo Counties, California. May. 

SMC (San Mateo County) Environmental Health and EOA, Inc., 2009. San Mateo Countywide 

Water Pollution Prevention Program, Fiscal Year 2008/2009 Annual Report. August 31. 





SMCWPPP (San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program), 2007. San Mateo 

County Watershed Data in GIS, July 16. 

SMCWPPP (San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program), 2010. C.3 Stormwater 

Technical Guidance. October 20. 

SWRCB (State Water Resources Control Board), 2003a. Water Quality Order NO. 2003– 003– 

DWQ, Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) for Discharges to Land with a 

Low Threat to Water Quality. April 30. 

SWRCB (State Water Resources Control Board), 2003b. Monitoring List 2002. July. Available 

online at: http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/2002_mon_list_020403.pdf. 

Accessed: May 17, 2011. 

SWRCB (State Water Resources Control Board), 2009. NPDES General Permit for Stormwater 

Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities. Order NO. 

2009-0009-DWQ, NPDES NO. CAS000002. September 2. Available online at: http://www.swrcb. 

ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/constpermits.shtml. Accessed: May 19, 2011. 

SWRCB (State Water Resources Control Board), 2010. 2010 California 303(d) List of Water Quality 

Limited Segments. Available online at: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/ 

tmdl/2010state_ir_reports/category5_report.shtml. Accessed: May 11, 2011. 

Town of Colma, 1999. Town of Colma General Plan. Adopted June 1999. Available online at: 

www.colma.ca.gov/index.php?option=com_docman&Itemid=147. Accessed: October 24, 2011. 

WRIME, 2012. South Westside Basin Groundwater Management Plan. July. 






This section describes the assessment of potential impacts related to hazards and hazardous 

materials that might be present within the vicinity of the Peninsula Pipelines Seismic Upgrade 

(PPSU) project and evaluates the potential hazards and hazardous materials impacts of the 

proposed PPSU project. Mitigation measures to avoid or reduce adverse impacts are identified, as 

appropriate. Potential hazards addressed in this section include public and construction worker 

exposure to chemical contamination in subsurface soil and groundwater, naturally occurring 

asbestos (NOA), release of hazardous materials during construction, and fires. 


5.17.1.1 Hazardous Materials in Soil and Groundwater 

This section assesses the potential for hazardous materials to be present in the soil or 

groundwater for the PPSU project, based on site reconnaissance, historical land use, and a review 

of the regulatory database for potentially hazardous sites as provided by Environmental Data 

Resources Inc. (EDR) for the Colma Site (EDR, 2011a), South San Francisco Site (EDR, 2011b), San 

Bruno North Site (EDR, 2011c), San Bruno South Site (EDR, 2011d), and Millbrae Site (EDR, 

2011e) and, for the common staging area, information contained in the Baden and San Pedro 

Valve Lots Improvement Project Mitigated Negative Declaration (SF Planning, 2008). Copies of 

the topographic maps, aerial photographs, and Sanborn maps are presented in Appendix G. 

Because the environmental conditions on the Baden Valve Lot remain substantially as described 

in the 2008 mitigated negative declaration, and because no new information is available that 

would change the findings of the mitigated negative declaration, the findings and the studies 

referenced therein are applicable to the common staging area for the PPSU project. 

Colma Site 

Site Reconnaissance 

The Colma site is located on vacant land that extends through Serra Shopping Center. Proposed 

laydown staging areas during construction of the project include a portion of the Kohl’s 

Department Store parking lot, and a vacant portion of land located within the San Francisco 

Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) right-of-way (ROW) south of Collins Avenue. Vegetation 

on the project site includes grasses that are cut and maintained by SFPUC. 

One piezometer 1 was identified within the Colma site, completed with a flush-mounted well box. 

The piezometer was recently installed for a geotechnical investigation at the time of the 

reconnaissance, and three soil drums marked with soil cuttings were located next to it. 

An aboveground well box surrounded by four bollards was also identified within the Colma site. 

The well box contains a group of monitoring wells used for the Westside Basin groundwater 

1 A piezometer is a small-diameter observation well used to measure the hydraulic head of groundwater in aquifers, or 

measure the pressure of a fluid at a specific location in a column. 





quality program. A large-diameter underground storm drain culvert was identified that transects 

the Colma site. The depth to groundwater is approximately 40 feet below ground surface (bgs), 

based on the water level measurements collected within the piezometer (GTC, 2011). 

No indication of the presence of underground storage tanks was observed, and no adverse 

environmental conditions (e.g., large areas of ground surface staining or odors) were observed on 

the Colma site or on properties immediately adjacent to the site. Based on the site reconnaissance, 

no major recognized environmental concerns were identified within the Colma study area. 

Historical Land Use 

Historical land uses within the Colma study area were evaluated, based on a review of historical 

topographic maps 2 and aerial photographs, 3 to establish a chronological history of development 

in the study area. Copies of the topographic maps and aerial photographs are presented in 

Appendix G. The EDR search for Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps did not reveal any maps for the 

Colma site. Following is a summary of developments at the Colma study area, as shown in the 

historical topographic maps and aerial photographs. 

 

 

 

 

 

The 1899 topographic map shows the Colma study area to be sparsely populated. A Southern 

Pacific railroad line and a roadway were identified near the present-day location of El 

Camino Real. Cemeteries were identified in the region of the study area. 

No topographic maps or aerial photos were available for dates between 1900 and 1942. The 

1940s and 1950s aerial photograph and topographic maps show the undeveloped project site. 

Colma Creek transected the project site in a west-east orientation. The 1943 aerial photograph 

shows a pipeline oriented in a north-south direction within the project site. Regional land 

uses within the study area appear to be agricultural, commercial development, and 

cemeteries. 

The 1960s aerial photograph and topographic map no longer show Colma Creek on the 

project site, which indicates that the creek was filled in some time in the late 1950s and early 

1960s. The project site remained undeveloped. New roadways were identified within the 

study area on the east side of the project site, which indicated further commercial 

development within the study area. 

The 1977 aerial photograph identifies an apparent culvert or ditch in the location of the 

Colma Creek within the project site. Further expansion of commercial land use and a 

decrease in agricultural use within the study area was identified during this year. 

The 1980 aerial photograph and topographic map indicate the development of the Serra 

Shopping Center within the study area. 

2 Historical topographic maps from the following years were reviewed: 1899, 1947, 1950, 1956, 1968, 1973, 1980, 1993, and 

1995. 

3 Historical aerial photographs from the following years were reviewed: 1943, 1956, 1965, 1977, 1982, 1993, 1998, 2005, 

and 2006. 





 

 

No significant land use changes were observed from the available aerial photographs and 

topographic maps from the 1990s. 

The aerial 2005 and 2006 photographs show a small paved auto parking lot on the project 

site. The parking area appears to be accessed from behind the Kohl’s Department Store near 

the southern end of the store. 

Based on a review of the historical aerial photographs and topographic maps, no recognized 

environmental concerns due to historical land uses were identified within the Colma study area. 

Regulatory Agency Database Review 

The findings of the EDR report for the Colma study area are described in this section. The Colma 

site is not listed on any of the databases reviewed. However, within the ¼-mile radius study area, 

listed sites were identified, as summarized below. 

 

 

 

 

Leaking Underground Storage Tank Lists (LUST). Seven sites were listed in the LUST 

database. The status of these seven sites is “Completed – Case Closed.” 

Spills, Leaks, Investigations and Cleanup Cases. One site was listed in the Spills, Leaks, 

Investigations, and Cleanup (SLIC) database and the status of the site is “Completed – Case 

Closed.” 

Historical Hazardous Waste & Substance Site List. Five sites were listed in the HIST 

CORTESE database and are also listed in the LUST database, which describes the status of 

the sites as “Completed – Case Closed.” 

California Hazardous Material Incident Report System (CHMIRS). One site was listed in 

the CHMIRS database. A 720-gallon sewage spill due to blockage of a sewer main was 

reported at 1351 El Camino Real in San Bruno, located between and ¼ mile from the project 

site. The release was contained and flushed out by the Town of Colma Public Works. 

Based on the remedial status of the listed sites for the LUST, SLIC, and HIST CORTESE 

databases. and because the sewage spill listed in the CHMIRS database was contained, it is 

unlikely that these sites would affect soil and groundwater at the Colma site. 



A dense grove of trees and shrubs is present in the western portion of the project site, and a 

landscaped area of grass and trees adjacent to the California Golf Club of San Francisco is present 

in the eastern portion of the project site. 

One piezometer and two soil borings were identified within the project site. The piezometer and 

borings appeared to have been recently installed, and soil storage drums marked with soil 

cuttings were located next to the piezometer and boring location. The piezometer and borings are 

associated with a recently completed geotechnical investigation conducted on the South San 

Francisco site. The depth to groundwater is approximately 59 feet bgs, based on the water level 

measurements collected from the piezometer (GTC, 2011). 





No indication of the presence of underground storage tanks was observed, and no adverse 


the South San Francisco site or properties immediately adjacent to the South San Francisco site. 

Based on the site reconnaissance, no recognized environmental concerns were identified within 

the South San Francisco study area. 


Historical land uses within the South San Francisco study area were evaluated, based on a review 

of historical topographic maps, 4 aerial photographs, 5 and Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps (years 

1956 and 1970), to establish a chronological history of development in the study area. Copies of 

the topographic maps, aerial photographs, and Sanborn maps are presented in Appendix G. A 

summary of developments at the South San Francisco study area is provided below. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The 1899 topographic map shows the South San Francisco study area to be sparsely 

populated. A Southern Pacific railroad line and a roadway were identified near the presentday 

location of El Camino Real. 


1940s aerial photograph and topographic maps show the project site undeveloped. The 1943 

aerial photograph shows a pipeline oriented in a north-south direction within the project site. 

Regional land use within the study area appears to have been an agricultural and residential 

development. 

The 1950s and 1960s aerial photographs and topographic maps showed the presence of 

Twelve Mile Creek, transecting the study area in a west-to-east orientation. The California 

Golf Club of San Francisco was present in the 1956 aerial photograph and topographic map. 

The 1956 Sanborn Fire Insurance map indicated the presence of a gas and oil station at the 

southeast corner of Arroyo Drive and Camaritas Avenue, approximately 200 feet east of the 

project site. Expansive residential development in the vicinity of the study area was 

identified in these decades. 

The 1970s aerial photograph and topographic map identified the presence of Westborough 

Boulevard, built over the former location of Twelve Mile Creek in the study area, and the 

completion of Interstate 280 (I-280). The gas and oil station identified in the 1956 Sanborn Fire 

Insurance map is present at the same location. 

The 1980s aerial photograph did not show the presence of the gas and oil station identified in 

the 1956 Sanborn Fire Insurance map. 

No significant land use changes were observed from the available aerial photographs and 

topographic maps from the 1990s through 2000. 

4 Historical topographic maps from the following years were reviewed: 1899, 1947, 1950, 1956, 1968, 1973, 1980, 1993, and 

1995. 


and 2006. 





Because a gas and oil station was previously located approximately 200 feet from the project site, 

additional review was conducted to assess the regional groundwater flow direction in order to 

evaluate whether any potential historical releases from the gas station may have affected the 

project site. Based on a review of the groundwater flow direction, described below under 

Regulatory Agency Database Review for the Former Standard Oil Substation, groundwater flow 

direction at the historical gas station is interpreted to be toward the east, and away from the 

project site. Therefore, it is presumed that the historical gas station would not have affected soil 

or groundwater within the South San Francisco site. 

Based on the review of the historical aerial photographs and topographic maps, no recognized 

environmental concerns due to historical land uses were identified within the South San 

Francisco study area. 


The findings of the EDR report for the South San Francisco study area are described in this 

section. The South San Francisco site is not listed on any of the databases reviewed. However, 

within the ¼-mile radius study area, listed sites were identified, as summarized below. 

 

 

 

 

Federal Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS). Two sites were listed in the 

ERNS database. One site reported a 10-gallon gasoline release due to an equipment failure, 

and the other site reported a spill of milk from a loading dock. Both cases reported 

containment and cleanup by the respective responding agencies. Both sites are located 

between and ¼ mile from the project site. 

Leaking Underground Storage Tank Lists. Fourteen sites were listed in the LUST database, 

and the status of 13 of these sites is “Completed – Case Closed.” The status of one of the sites 

(Former Standard Oil Substation) was listed as “Open – Verification Monitoring.” Additional 

information for this site is presented below. 

Historical Hazardous Waste & Substance Site List. Three sites were listed in the HIST 

CORTESE database. These three sites are also listed in the LUST database, which describes 

the status of the sites as “Completed – Case Closed.” 

California Hazardous Material Incident Report System. Four sites were listed in the 

CHMIRS database. The four reported incidents included a sewage release, a small 10-gallon 

gasoline spill, a milk spill, and smoke from a malfunctioning pressure washer. Local agencies 

responded to the releases to assist in each of the cleanup efforts. 

Sites listed as “Completed – Case Closed” in the LUST and HIST CORTESE databases are unlikely 

to affect soil or groundwater at the South San Francisco site, because the cleanup of these sites has 

been completed. In addition, the cleanup efforts of the sites listed in the CHMIRS database 

indicate that these sites would not affect soil and groundwater at the South San Francisco site. 

Additional file review was undertaken for the one site listed in the LUST database as “Open – 

Verification Monitoring.” AEW Engineering, Inc. reviewed available electronic files for the site 

obtained from the SWRCB Geo Tracker database and San Mateo County Environmental Health 

(SMCEH). The identified site and a brief description of the findings for this site are summarized 

below. 





 

Former Standard Oil Substation, 972 El Camino Real, South San Francisco, CA (MAP ID F56 

of the EDR Report in Appendix G). A former Standard Oil Substation is located at 972 El 

Camino Real, South San Francisco, California, at a distance approximately mile east of the 

South San Francisco site. According to the LUST database, the status of the site is “Open – 

Verification Monitoring.” Current environmental information for the former Standard Oil 

Substation was obtained from Conestoga-Rovers & Associates (CRA, 2010). The primary 

chemicals of concern in soil at the site are total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline (TPH-gas), 

total petroleum hydrocarbons as diesel (TPH-diesel), benzene, and naphthalene. The primary 

chemicals-of-concern in groundwater at the site are TPH-gas and TPH-diesel. Currently there 

are three groundwater monitoring wells at the site, which are sampled on a quarterly sampling 

schedule. A summary of the most recent groundwater data (February 2010) is presented below. 

 

 

TPH-gas and TPH-diesel were detected at maximum concentrations of 340 micrograms 

per liter (μg/L) and 210 μg/L, respectively. According to the report, the dissolved 

hydrocarbons appear to be adequately delineated at this time. 

Groundwater flow direction in the well field for the February 2010 groundwater 

monitoring event is to the east, with a hydraulic gradient of 0.01 vertical feet per 

horizontal foot. The groundwater flow direction is away from the project site. 

Because the groundwater flow direction is to the east, away from the South San Francisco site, the 

dissolved hydrocarbons appear to be adequately delineated, and as the site is greater than 

approximately mile from the South San Francisco site, it is unlikely that this site would affect 

soil and groundwater at the South San Francisco site. 



The San Bruno North site consists of open space covered with grasses, shrubs, and trees, and is 

located adjacent to a residential neighborhood. The approximate elevation of the primary aquifer 

is -180 feet below mean sea level. No indication of the presence of underground storage tanks 

was observed, and no adverse environmental conditions (e.g., large areas of ground surface 

staining or odors) were observed on the San Bruno North site or on properties immediately 

adjacent to the San Bruno North site. 


the San Bruno North study area. 


Historical land uses within the San Bruno North study area were evaluated, based on a review of 

historical topographic maps 6 and aerial photographs, 7 to establish a chronological history of 

6 Historical topographic maps from the following years were reviewed: 1899, 1947, 1949, 1956, 1968, 1973, 1980, 1993, 

1995, and 1997. 


and 2006. 





development in the study area. Copies of the topographic maps and aerial photographs are 

presented in Appendix G. The EDR search for Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps did not reveal any 

maps for the San Bruno North site. A summary of developments at the San Bruno North study 

area is provided below. 

 

 

 

 

 

The 1899 topographic map showed the San Bruno North study area to be sparsely populated. 


1940s aerial photograph and topographic maps showed the study area as predominantly 

undeveloped. The 1949 topographic map identified a pipeline oriented in a north-south 

direction within the San Bruno North site. 

The 1950s and 1960s aerial photographs and topographic maps showed the expansion of 

residential development within the study area, including the neighborhood adjacent to the 

San Bruno North site. 

The 1970s aerial photograph and topographic map identified the completion of I-280, 

continued residential expansion west of the San Bruno North site, and the presence of the 

Bayhill Shopping Center to the north of the San Bruno North site. 

No significant land use changes were observed for the available aerial photographs and 

topographic maps from the 1980s through 2000. 

Based on the review of the historical aerial photographs and topographic maps, no recognized 

environmental concerns due to historical land uses were identified within the San Bruno North 

study area. 


The findings of the EDR report for the San Bruno North study area are described below in this 

section. The San Bruno North site is not listed on any of the databases reviewed. However, within 

the ¼-mile radius study area, listed sites were identified, as summarized below. 

 

 

Federal Emergency Response Notification System. One site was listed in the ERNS database 

as having had a reported 3-gallon spill of acetone. The incident was cleaned up by the 

respective responding agencies. The site is located between and ¼ mile from the San Bruno 

North site. 

California Hazardous Material Incident Report System. Three sites were listed in the 

CHMIRS database. Two of the three incidents involved a sewage release resulting from 

blockage by roots, while the third incident involved a release of wastewater from a 

wastewater plant. Local agencies responded to the releases to assist in each of the cleanup 

efforts. 

Based on the cleanup efforts of the sites listed in the ERNS and CHMIRS databases, it is unlikely 

that these sites would affect soil and groundwater at the San Bruno North site. 







Condominiums are located on the east and west sides of the SFPUC easement. The southern 

portion of the construction zone is located along a vacant hillside. Vegetation on the hillside 

includes grasses and brush. An apartment complex is located adjacent to the west boundary of 

the SFPUC easement near Whitman Way, and single family houses are located along the 

remaining western boundary of SFPUC easement. 

The depth to groundwater ranges from 20 to 56 feet bgs at the San Bruno South site. No 

indication of the presence of an underground storage tank was observed. No adverse 


the San Bruno South site or on properties immediately adjacent to the project site. 


the San Bruno South study area. 


Historical land uses at and adjacent to the San Bruno South site were evaluated, based on a 

review of historical topographic maps 8 and aerial photographs, 9 to establish a chronological 

history of development in the study area. Copies of the topographic maps and aerial photographs 

are presented in Appendix G. The EDR search for Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps did not reveal 

any maps for the San Bruno South site. A summary of developments at the San Bruno South site, 

as shown in the historical topographic maps and aerial photographs, is provided below. 

 

 

 

The 1899 topographic map shows the San Bruno South site as undeveloped. A roadway 

along the eastern side of San Andreas Reservoir was identified near the present-day location 

of Skyline Boulevard. A road leading to the City of San Bruno near the present-day location 

of Crystal Springs Road was identified in the vicinity of the San Bruno South site. Scattered 

home sites are indicative of a sparse population near the current-day city boundaries. 


1943 aerial photograph and 1947 and 1949 topographic maps show the San Bruno South site 

as undeveloped. A linear feature on the ground surface in the aerial photograph may 

represent the location of the San Andreas Pipeline No. 2 (SAPL2). A “Pipe Line” appeared in 

the same orientation and location of SAPL2 for the first time on the 1949 topographic map. 

The 1956 aerial photograph and topographic map show major expansion of residential 

development to the east and north of the San Bruno South site. Junipero Serra Boulevard was 

identified as a major roadway just east of the project site. The aerial photograph shows largescale 

grading and construction in the vicinity of the project site for future residential 

development. 

8 Historical topographic maps from the following years were reviewed: 1899, 1947, 1949, 1956, 1968, 1980, 1993, and 1997. 

9 Historical aerial photographs from the following years were reviewed: 1943, 1956, 1965, 1973, 1982, 1993, 1998, and 

2005. 





 

 

 

The 1965 aerial photograph and 1969 topographic map identify the completion of Peninsula 

High School and residential development along Courtland Drive. Whitman Way was present 

and intersects Junipero Serra Boulevard. I-280) was present on the 1968 topographic map. 

The SFPUC easement remained undeveloped, with the exception of apparent walking trails 

leading from Whitman Way to Peninsula High School. 

The 1973 aerial photograph shows the completion of the Shelter Creek Condominium 

complex north of Whitman Way. The SFPUC easement remained undeveloped south of 

Whitman Way. 


topographic maps for the decades of 1980, 1990, and 2000, with the exception of the San 

Bruno Chinese Church, completed in the late 1990s or early 2000s. 


environmental concerns due to historical site uses were identified at or adjacent to the San Bruno 

South study area. 


The findings from the EDR report for the San Bruno South study area are described in this 

section. The San Bruno South site is not listed on any of the databases reviewed. Databases listed 

no other sites within the ¼-mile radius study area that may affect soil and groundwater at the 

San Bruno South site. Results of the database search, including site names, addresses, and maps 

showing identified locations within the search area, are presented in the EDR report. 

Millbrae Site 


A dense grove, primarily of eucalyptus and oak trees, covers a major portion of the easement 

within the construction zone; this grove is planned to be removed as part of the construction 

activities. Miscellaneous golf course maintenance equipment (irrigation pipes, signs, mowers, 

etc.) were located near the vicinity of the construction zone. 

A concrete foundation and remnants of a former water storage tank were identified along the 

trail that extends through the City of Millbrae open space area from Lomita Avenue to the SFPUC 

ROW (access route to the project site). No indications of the presence of underground fuel storage 

tanks were observed, and no adverse environmental conditions (e.g., large areas of ground 

surface staining or odors) were observed on the Millbrae site or on properties immediately 

adjacent to the site. 


the Millbrae study area. 






Historical land uses within the Millbrae study area were evaluated, based on a review of 

historical topographic maps 10 and aerial photographs, 11 to establish a chronological history of 

development in the study area. Copies of the topographic maps and aerial photographs are 

presented in Appendix G. The EDR search for Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps did not reveal any 

maps for the Millbrae site. A summary of developments at the Millbrae site, as shown in the 

historical topographic maps and aerial photographs, is provided below. 

 

 

 

 

 

The 1899 topographic map showed the Millbrae site as undeveloped. A roadway along the 

eastern side of San Andreas Reservoir was identified near the present-day location of Skyline 

Boulevard. Scattered home sites are indicative of a sparse population near the current-day 

City of Millbrae; 


1943 aerial photograph and 1947 and 1949 topographic maps showed the Millbrae site as 

undeveloped. Regional land use development included the expansion of residential 

development to the east of the Millbrae site. A large expanse of land labeled “Borrow Pit” 

was identified on the 1949 topographic map near the present-day location of Helen Drive, 

west of the Millbrae site. The identification of a borrow pit may be indicative that quarrying 

operations may have taken place at that location. Green Hills Country Club appeared for the 

first time on the 1949 topographic map; 

The 1956 aerial photograph and topographic map showed further expansion of residential 

development to the west of the Millbrae site, and the completion of Helen Drive and 

Larkspur Drive at their present-day locations. The area described as “Borrow Pit” on the 1949 

topographic map appeared to have been filled in for the expansion of residential 

development. A water tank was identified adjacent to the Millbrae site next to the potential 

construction access route through Junipero Serra County Park; 

The 1965 aerial photograph and 1969 topographic map identified continued expansion of 

residential development to the north and south of the Millbrae site. I-280 was present on the 

1968 topographic map; and 


topographic maps for decades of 1970, 1980, 1990 and 2000, with the exception of the dense 

tree groves within the City of Millbrae open space area. 


environmental concerns were identified within the Millbrae study area. 


The findings from the EDR report for the Millbrae study area are described in this section. The 

Millbrae site is not listed in any of the databases reviewed. Databases listed no other sites within 

10 Historical topographic maps from the following years were reviewed: 1899, 1947, 1949, 1956, 1968, 1980, 1993, and 1997. 

11 Historical aerial photographs from the following years were reviewed: 1943, 1956, 1965, 1974, 1982, 1993, 1998, and 2005. 





the ¼-mile radius study area that may affect soil and groundwater at the Millbrae site. Results of 

the database search, including site names, addresses, and maps showing identified locations 

within the search area, are presented in the EDR report. 


At the common staging area located on the northern portion of the SFPUC’s Baden Value Lot, 

existing water supply operations, facility maintenance activities, and water quality monitoring 

involve the use, storage, and generation of hazardous materials as described in the Baden and 

San Pedro Valve Lots Improvement Project Mitigated Negative Declaration (SF Planning, 2008). 

In accordance with requirements of the City and County of San Francisco and San Mateo County, 

the SFPUC possesses hazardous materials use permits for the use and storage of flammable and 

combustible liquids at the Baden Valve Lot, and has prepared a hazardous materials business 

plan to provide facility operators with step-by-step procedures for the use, storage, and handling 

of hazardous materials during routine and emergency operations. No records of violations 

related to the improper use, storage, or disposal of hazardous materials at the Baden Valve Lot 

were identified in environmental databases (SF Planning, 2008). However, based on the 

information described in the Baden and San Pedro Valve Lots Improvement Project Mitigated 

Negative Declaration, petroleum hydrocarbons such as diesel and motor oil have been identified 

in the soil at concentrations greater than environmental screening levels and criteria for 

unrestricted disposal, and the concentrations of soluble nickel and chromium may exceed 

hazardous waste criteria in the common staging area (SF Planning, 2008). 

5.17.1.2 Hazardous Building Materials 

There are no existing buildings located within the project construction zones 12 and, based on the 

historical land uses described above, no buildings previously existed within the construction 

zones. While the existing pipelines are not expected to contain hazardous materials, depending 

upon the construction methods and materials used, there may be internal coatings or material 

lining the pipelines that could contain hazardous substances. 

5.17.1.3 Naturally Occurring Asbestos 

Asbestos is a common name for a group of naturally occurring fibrous silicate minerals that are 

made up of thin but strong, durable fibers. Asbestos is a known carcinogen and presents a public 

health hazard if it is present in the friable (easily crumbled) form. Naturally occurring asbestos 

would most likely be encountered in Franciscan ultramafic rock 13 (primarily serpentinite 14 ), or as an 

inclusion in Franciscan mélange. 15 As described in Section 5.15, Geology and Soils, the underlying 

12 One existing structure, a gazebo, is located within the SFPUC ROW in the side yard of the single family home at 

1094 Ridgewood Drive, and would be removed for the proposed project. 

13 Ultramafic rocks are formed in high-temperature environments well below the surface of the earth. 

14 Serpentine is a naturally occurring group of minerals that can be formed when ultramafic rocks are metamorphosed 

during uplift to the earth’s surface. Serpentinite is a rock consisting of one or more serpentine minerals. This rock type 

is commonly associated with ultramafic rock along earthquake faults. Small amounts of chrysotile asbestos, a fibrous 

form of serpentine minerals, are common in serpentinite. 

15 Mélange is a mixture of rock materials of differing sizes and types typically contained within a sheared matrix. 





geology of the project sites consists primarily of the Colma Formation and Merced Formation, with 

areas of alluvium deposits, slope wash/ravine fill/colluvium, and artificial fill. The Merced 

Formation overlies or is in fault contact with the Franciscan Complex. The Franciscan Complex rock 

found along the Serra Fault zone in and south of the study area consists principally of sheared rock 

and clay (mélange) with tectonic inclusions of greywacke, chert, and greenstone, and minor 

serpentinite. However, Franciscan ultramafic rock, including serpentinite, was not observed in the 

vicinity of the proposed project sites. Therefore, NOA is not expected to be encountered. 

5.17.1.4 Wildfire Hazards 

The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) provides statewide 

information pertaining to wildfire hazards and prevention. Land within the state is designated as 

either a State Responsibility Area (lands for which the state has financial responsibility with 

respect to preventing and suppressing fires) or as a Local Responsibility Areas (areas for which 

local agencies have the financial responsibility to prevent and suppress fires). Within each 

responsibility area, lands are categorized as either Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones 

(VHFHSZ) or Non-Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (non-VHFHSZ). New buildings within 

areas categorized as VHFHSZs are required by California Building Code (Chapter 7A) to use 

ignition resistant construction methods and materials. The PPSU project sites are located in Local 

Responsibility Areas (CAL FIRE FRAP, 2012) and are categorized as Non-Very High Fire Hazard 

Severity Zones (CAL FIRE, 2008). 

5.17.1.5 Airports 

The San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan (San Mateo County Airport Land 

Use Commission, 1996) identifies airspace obstruction criteria for public use airports in San 

Mateo County. The closest public airport to the project sites is the San Francisco International 

Airport (SFO), which is located approximately 1 mile from the Millbrae Site (the closest project 

site to SFO) and approximately 4 miles from the Colma site (the farthest site to SFO). 

A review of private airport listing information from Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

indicated that there are no private airstrips in the vicinity of the proposed project sites (FAA, 2012). 

The closest private airports to the project sites are located in Half Moon Bay and San Carlos. 


Hazardous materials and hazardous wastes are subject to numerous federal, State, and local laws 

and regulations intended to protect public health and safety and the environment. The United 

States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), California Environmental Protection Agency 

(Cal/EPA), Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), and Regional Water Quality Control 

Board (RWQCB) are the major federal, State, and regional agencies that enforce these 

regulations. 16 These laws and regulations are summarized below. 

16 Bay Area Air Quality Management District regulations are discussed in the Air Quality Technical Report. 







The U.S. EPA is the lead agency responsible for enforcing federal laws and regulations regarding 

hazardous materials that affect public health or the environment. The major federal laws and 

regulations enforced by U.S. EPA include Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA), Toxic 

Substances Control Act (TSCA), Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Act (CERCLA), and Superfund Amendment Reauthorization Act (SARA). 

In 1974, RCRA was enacted to provide a general framework for the U.S. EPA to regulate 

hazardous waste from the time it is generated until its ultimate disposal. In accordance with 

RCRA, facilities that generate, treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste are required to ensure 

that the wastes are properly managed from “cradle to grave.” 

In 1976, TSCA was enacted to provide U.S. EPA the authority to regulate the production, 

importation, use, and disposal of chemicals that pose a risk of adversely impacting public health 

and the environment, such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), asbestos-containing materials 

(ACMs), and lead-based paint. TSCA also gives U.S. EPA the authority to regulate the cleanup of 

sites contaminated with specific chemicals, such as PCBs. 

In 1980, CERCLA, commonly known as Superfund, was enacted to ensure that a source of funds 

was available for the U.S. EPA to clean up uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous materials 

release sites that pose a risk of adversely affecting public health and the environment. 

Prohibitions and requirements regarding closed or abandoned hazardous waste sites, and 

liability standards for responsible parties were also established by CERCLA. In 1986, SARA 

amended CERCLA to increase the Superfund budget, modify contaminated cleanup criteria and 

schedules, and revise settlement procedures. 

Worker Health and Safety 

Worker health and safety is protected by federal and State laws and regulations. The 

U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Fed-OSHA) is the federal administering 

agency for worker health and safety regulations. Fed-OSHA is responsible for enforcement and 

implementation of federal laws and regulations pertaining to worker health and safety. Under 

Fed-OSHA jurisdiction, the Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response regulations 

in 29 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1210.120 require training and medical supervision for 

workers at hazardous waste sites. Additional regulations have been developed for construction 

workers regarding exposure to lead (29 CFR 1926.62) and asbestos (29 CFR 1926.1101) during 


Airports/Airspace 

The FAA has jurisdiction over airspace in the United States, and the FAA requirements as they 

relate to land uses near the San Francisco International Airport are described below. 

The Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) provide criteria for evaluating the potential effects of 

obstruction on the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace within approximately 2 to 3 miles 





of airport runways and approximately 9.5 miles from the end of high-traffic runways that have a 

precision instrument approach. FAA requires notification of proposed construction or alteration 

projects identified by the following airspace obstruction criteria provided in FAR Part 77: 

 

 

 

Any construction or alteration of more than 200 feet in height above the ground level within 

navigable airspace as defined above. 

Any construction or alteration of greater height than an imaginary surface extending 

outward 100 feet and upward 1 foot for a horizontal distance of 20,000 feet from the nearest 

point of the nearest runway of an airport with at least one runway more than 3,200 feet of 

actual length; and 

Any construction or alteration of greater height that an imaginary surface extending outward 

50 feet and upward 1 foot for a horizontal distance of 10,000 feet from the nearest point of the 

nearest runway of an airport with its longest runway no more than 3,200 feet of actual length. 

Under the California State Aeronautics Act, local governments have the authority to protect airspace 

as defined by criteria provided in FAR Part 77. The City/County Association of Governments of San 

Mateo is the Airport Land Use Commission and has adopted the San Mateo County Comprehensive 

Airport Land Use Plan, which incorporates and in some cases exceeds the criteria provided in FAR 

Part 77 (San Mateo County Airport Land Use Commission, 1996). Other airspace protection concerns 

described in FAR Part 77 include avoiding land uses in the airport vicinity that would create hazards 

to flight such as electrical interference, lighting, glare, smoke, and bird strikes. 

5.17.2.2 State 

In California, the U.S. EPA has granted most enforcement authority over federal hazardous 

materials regulation to Cal/EPA. The mission of Cal/EPA is to restore, protect, and enhance the 

environment to ensure public health, environmental quality, and economic vitality. Under the 

authority of Cal/EPA, DTSC and the San Francisco Bay RWQCB are responsible for overseeing the 

cleanup of contaminated sites. DTSC implements the State Superfund Act, which focuses on the 

protection of public health and the environment from the threats posed by releases or threatened 

releases of hazardous materials. The RWQCB implements the Porter-Cologne Act, which focuses on 

the preservation and protection of water quality and the beneficial uses of waters of the State. 

Hazardous Materials Sites 

Known or suspected contaminated sites under DTSC or RWQCB oversight are identified by 

Cal/EPA pursuant to Government Code 65962.5. The provisions of Government Code 65962.5, 

which are commonly referred to as the Cortese List, require the DTSC, the RWQCB, the 

Department of Health Services, and the California Integrated Waste Management Board to 

submit information pertaining to sites associated with solid waste disposal, hazardous waste 

disposal, and/or hazardous materials releases to the Secretary of Environmental Protection. 

Naturally Occurring Asbestos and Asbestos-Containing Materials 

Under the Clean Air Act, the U.S. EPA established the National Emissions Standard for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants to protect the public from hazardous air pollutants, such as asbestos. 





The regulations for asbestos require protocols to minimize the release of asbestos fibers during 

activities involving the processing, handling, and disposal of ACMs. General requirements of 

these emissions standards include adequate wetting of ACMs and no visible emissions. 

The California Air Resources Board established an Asbestos Airborne Toxic Control Measure that 

requires the employment of the best available dust mitigation measures during construction and 

grading operations in areas where NOA rock is likely to be encountered. For sites larger than 1 acre, 

the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, which implements this measure in the Bay Area, 

would require that an asbestos dust mitigation plan be prepared and submitted for approval. 

Wildlands Fire Hazards 

State policies regarding wildland fire safety are administered by the office of the State Fire 

Marshall and CAL FIRE. CAL FIRE also staffs the San Mateo County Fire Protection Services 

program, which provides firefighting personnel and equipment in response to wildland fires in 

unincorporated areas of San Mateo County. 

State lands are classified by CAL FIRE into Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ) to assist 

responsible state and local agencies identify measures to reduce the potential for losses of life, 

property, and resources from wildland fire. FHSZ are classified by the CAL FIRE Director in 

accordance with California Public Resource Code (PRC) sections 4201 through 4204 for state 

responsibility areas and in accordance with Government Code sections 51176 through 51189 in 

local responsibility areas. FHSZ mapped by CAL FIRE for state and local responsibility areas are 

classified as Medium, High, or Very High based on fire hazards; however, the law only requires 

identification of Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in local responsibility areas. 

New buildings and development projects located in any FHSZ in the state responsibility area, 

and any Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone in a local responsibility area, are required to 

comply with the materials and construction methods for exterior wildfire exposures and 

vegetation management practices described in Chapter 7A of the 2007 California Building Code 

(CBC) and Chapter 47 in the California Fire Code (CFC). When required by the San Mateo 

County Fire Protection Service Program, a fire Protection Plan for new developments in 

Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Areas that describes ways to minimize and mitigate potential for 

loss from wildland fire exposure must be prepared in accordance with the 2007 CBC and CFC. 

Construction contractors are required to comply with the following requirements during 

construction activities at sites with any forest, brush, or grass-covered land: 

 

 

 

Earthmoving and portable equipment with internal combustion engines shall be equipped 

with a spark arrestor to reduce the potential for igniting a wildland fire; 

Appropriate fire suppression equipment shall be maintained during the highest fire danger 

period – from April 1 to December 1; 

On days when a burning permit is required, flammable material shall be removed to a 

distance of 10 feet from any equipment that could produce a spark, fire, or flame, and the 

construction contractor shall maintain the appropriate fire suppression equipment; and 





 

On days when a burning permit is required, portable tools powered by gasoline-fueled 

internal combustion engines shall not be used within 25 feet of any flammable materials. 

As of January 1, 2009, Section 4291 of the PRC also requires anyone who owns, leases, controls, 

operates, or maintains any building or structure in, upon, or adjoining a mountainous area, 

forest-covered lands, brush-covered lands, grass-covered lands, or land that is covered with 

flammable material within a state responsibility area to comply with the following conditions: 

 

 

 

 

Maintain any combustible materials, such as vegetation and petroleum-based products, 

within 100 feet of a structure in a condition so that a wildfire burning under average weather 

conditions would not likely ignite the structure; 

Implement the most intense fuel management within the first 30 feet around the structure. 

Beyond that, the intensity of fuels management may vary within the 100-foot perimeter of the 

structure; 

Maintain any tree, shrub, or other plant adjacent to or overhanging a structure to keep it free 

of dead or dying wood; and 

Remove leaves, needles, or other vegetative material from the roof structure. 

Worker Health and Safety 

California Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Occupational Safety and Health, 

enforces State regulations and supervision of workplaces in California that are not under direct 

federal jurisdiction. State worker health and safety regulations applicable to construction workers 

include training requirements for hazardous waste operations and emergency response 

(8 California Code of Regulations [CCR] 5192), lead (8 CCR 1532.1), and asbestos (8 CCR 1529) 

regulations that equal or exceed federal counterparts. 

5.17.2.3 Local 

Hazardous Materials Sites 

In San Mateo County, the SMCEH Division, or in some instances the RWQCB and/or the DTSC, 

perform oversight during the remediation of contaminated sites. At sites where contamination is 

suspected or known to have occurred, the site owner is required to perform a site investigation and 

perform site remediation, if necessary. Site remediation or development may also be subject to 

regulations by other agencies if the construction activities require dewatering operations. The project 

sponsor might be required to obtain a permit from the municipal sewer agency before discharging the 

water to the sewer system, or a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit from the 

RWQCB before discharging to the stormwater collection system. Refer to Section 5.16, Hydrology and 

Water Quality, for regulations pertaining to waste discharge requirements for dewatering activities. 








impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials, but generally considers that implementation 

of the proposed project would have a significant impact on hazards if it would: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, 

use, or disposal of hazardous materials; 

Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable 

upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the 

environment; 

Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, 

or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school; 

Be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant 

to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the 

public or the environment; 

For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been 

adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, result in a safety hazard for 

people residing or working in the project area; 

For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, result in a safety hazard for people 

residing or working in the project area; 

Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan 

or emergency evacuation plan; or 

Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland 

fires. 


Due to the nature of the proposed activities at the project sites, there would be no impacts related 

to the following significance criteria. Therefore, an impact discussion is not provided for the 

reasons below. 


 

Create a significant hazard through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous 

materials or through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions. Following 

completion of project construction, operation of the pipelines would be essentially the same 

as existing operations, and scheduled maintenance and repairs would occur as necessary. 

While the pipelines would be inspected regularly in accordance with the standard inspection 





schedule, the type of inspection or maintenance activities would not substantially change 

from current practices. Operation and maintenance of the upgraded pipelines would not 

require increased use of hazardous materials or result in any other hazards. Therefore, 

project operations would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment 

through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, or through reasonably 

foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into 

the environment. Therefore, these significance criteria are discussed below under Impact 

HZ-1 and Impact HZ-2 only as they apply to project construction activities. 

 

 

 

Emit hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of a school. As described 

previously, project operations would not result in significant hazards from the routine 

transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials, or through the reasonably foreseeable 

upset or accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials. Project operations 

and maintenance activities would be similar to existing activities and would include pipe 

inspections and maintenance activities. Although there are schools located within the project 

vicinity, project operations would not result in emissions or handling of hazardous materials 

within 0.25 mile of a school. Therefore, this significance criterion is not applicable to project 

operations and is discussed below under Impact HZ-3 only as it applies to project 


Result in a safety hazard in the vicinity of a public airport. During project operations, 

project site conditions would generally be similar to existing site conditions. The pipeline 

segments to be replaced are underground and customer service connections are generally a 

few feet above ground. There is no lighting associated with project operations. As described 

above, the closest airport to the project sites is SFO, located approximately 1 mile from the 

Millbrae site (the site closest to the airport). Therefore, this significance criterion is not 

applicable to project operations and is discussed below under Impact HZ-4 only as it applies 

to project construction activities. 

Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an emergency response plan or 

emergency evacuation plan. During project operations, the site conditions would generally 

be similar to existing conditions, and emergency access in the vicinity of the project sites 

would not be impaired by the yearly inspections or other operations and maintenance 

activities. As described in Section 5.6, Transportation and Circulation, PPSU project 

operations would not permanently change the existing or planned transportation network 

and would not affect emergency vehicle access in the vicinity of the project sites. The 

operation of the project would not impair or interfere with implementation of the San Mateo 

County Emergency Operations Plan (San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office of Emergency 

Services and Homeland Security, 2011). Therefore, this significance criterion is discussed 

below under Impact HZ-5 only as it pertains to project construction activities. 



 

Be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled 

pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. This criterion is related to the identification 

of hazardous waste and substance sites as compiled by the RWQCB, the Integrated Waste 

Board, and the DTSC. As discussed in Section 5.17.1, the results of the Phase I Environmental 





Site Assessment (ESA) for the project sites did not identify any sites within the study areas 

that are listed pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Therefore, this significance 

criterion is not applicable to the proposed project and is not discussed further. 

 

 

Result in safety hazards in the vicinity of a private airstrip. As described above in 

Section 5.17.1.5, private airports are not located within the vicinity of the project sites. 

Therefore, the significance criterion that addresses potential aviation hazards from private 

airports is not applicable to the proposed project, and is not discussed further. 

Risk involving wildland fires. As described above in Section 5.17.1.4, none of the proposed 

project sites is located within a designated fire hazard severity zone. Therefore, the 

significance criterion that addresses potential wildland fires is not applicable to the proposed 

project and is not discussed further. 

This analysis focuses on the potential to encounter hazardous substances in soil and groundwater 

during construction and is based on: (1) the regulatory database review conducted to identify 

hazardous materials uses and environmental cases that could affect soil and groundwater within 

the PPSU projects (EDR 2011a, 2011b, 2011c, 2011d, and 2011e), and (2) review of chemical data 

for the common staging area (SF Planning, 2008). The analysis also addresses the potential for a 

release of hazardous materials from construction equipment during construction. 

As described in Chapter 3, Project Description, project operation and maintenance would be 

similar to existing operations and maintenance of the pipelines. As described above, project 

operation would not result in significant hazards pertaining to the applicable significance criteria. 

Therefore, there would be no project operations impacts. 


Table 5.17-1 lists the proposed project’s hazards and hazardous materials impacts and 

significance determination. 


Impact HZ-1: Project construction would not create a significant hazard to the public or 

the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. 


Hazardous materials may be encountered during soil excavation, and would be trucked to an 

appropriate disposal facility. In addition, construction materials typically include varying 

amounts of hazardous materials. The materials expected to be transported to and used at the 

project sites include fuels (diesel and gasoline), lubricants, paints, solvents, and flammable gases 

for welding. 

Numerous laws and regulations ensure the safe transportation, use, storage, and disposal of 

hazardous materials as presented in the Regulatory Framework (Section 5.17.2). Routine 

transport of hazardous materials to and from project sites could indirectly result in an 

incremental increase in the potential for accidents; however, the California Department of 





Table 5.17-1 

Summary of Impacts – Hazards and Hazardous Materials 

Impacts 

Impact HZ-1: Project construction would not create a significant 

hazard to the public or the environment through the routine 

transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. 

Impact HZ-2: Project construction could create a significant hazard 

to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable 

upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous 

materials into the environment. 

Impact HZ-3: Project construction would not result in emissions or 

use of hazardous materials or substances within 0.25 mile of a 

school during construction. 

Impact HZ-4: Project construction would not result in public 

airport-related aviation hazards during construction. 

Impact HZ-5: Project construction would not impair 

implementation of, or physically interfere with, an emergency 

response plan or emergency evacuation plan. 

Impact C-HZ: Construction of the proposed project could result in 

a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative impacts 

related to hazards and hazardous materials. 

Significance 

Determination 

LS 

LSM 

LS 

LS 

LS 

LSM 

Notes: 

LS = Less than significant. 

LSM = Less than significant with mitigation. 

Transportation and the California Highway Patrol regulate the transportation of hazardous 

materials and wastes, including container types and packaging requirements, as well as licensing 

and training for truck operators, chemical handlers, and hazardous waste haulers. Worker safety 

regulations under the jurisdiction of Fed-OSHA and the California Department of Industrial 

Relations, Division of Occupational Safety and Health, cover hazards related to the prevention of 

exposure to hazardous materials, release to the environment from hazardous materials use, and 

emergency response. Compliance with laws and regulations under the jurisdiction of the 

U.S. EPA, Cal/EPA, and DTSC would ensure disposal of hazardous materials at an appropriate 

landfill. Because the SFPUC and all service providers would be required to comply with existing 

and future hazardous materials laws and regulations for the transport, use, and disposal of 

hazardous materials, the impacts associated with the potential to create significant hazards to the 

public or the environment would be less than significant. 





Impact HZ-2: Project construction could create a significant hazard to the public or the 

environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving 

the release of hazardous materials into the environment. (Less than Significant with 

Mitigation) 

As described above, the Phase I ESA for the five project sites did not identify any hazardous 

materials uses or environmental sites within the study areas that could adversely impact soil and 

groundwater quality. Additionally, as described above, NOA is not anticipated to be encountered 

during construction; therefore, NOA is not considered to be a hazard at the project sites. 

Consequently, it is anticipated that there is a low potential to encounter hazardous materials in 

the soil and groundwater during construction. Based on the information described in the Baden 

and San Pedro Valve Lots Improvement Project Mitigated Negative Declaration (SF Planning, 

2008), petroleum hydrocarbons such as diesel and motor oil have been identified in the soil at 

concentrations greater than environmental screening levels and criteria for unrestricted disposal, 

and the concentrations of soluble nickel and chromium may exceed hazardous waste criteria in 

the common staging area. However, activities proposed at the common staging area would 

involve installation of offices and worker parking. Related construction activities include the 

placement of offices (trailers) and minor site improvements, such as gravel laydown. Therefore, 

there is low potential to encounter adversely impacted soil and groundwater at the common 

staging area, because soil and groundwater would likely not be disturbed. 

However, for all of the project sites it cannot be determined with certainty whether excavated 

materials would contain potentially hazardous soil and/or groundwater wastes. In addition, 

construction materials typically used during construction activities include varying amounts of 

hazardous materials. The materials expected to be used and stored at the project sites and staging 

areas include fuels (diesel and gasoline), lubricants, paints, solvents, and flammable gases for 

welding. If an accident occurred involving such hazardous materials during construction, 

exposure to hazardous materials could potentially pose a health risk to construction workers 

through ingestion, inhalation, or dermal contact; or to the public if unauthorized access to the 

materials occurred. Such an impact would be considered potentially significant. 

Implementation of the mitigation measures described below would reduce hazards to 

construction workers, the public, or the environment related to reasonably foreseeable upset and 

accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment during 

construction. Mitigation Measures M-HZ-2a: Prepare and Implement a Hazardous Material 

Handling and Disposal Plan, M-HZ-2b: Prepare and Implement a Hazardous Material 

Business Plan, and M-HZ-2c: Develop and Implement a Health and Safety Plan, would reduce 

impacts through compliance with applicable laws and regulations for testing, handling, 

transporting, and disposing of hazardous waste; through implementation of site-specific, 

construction best management practices for use, disposal and transport of hazardous materials; 

and through protections for workers. Mitigation Measure M-HY-1: Preparation and 

Implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (see Section 5.16, Hydrology and 

Water Quality), would reduce impacts through measures to control erosion and sedimentation of 

receiving water bodies, and minimize the risk of hazardous material release to surface water 

bodies. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant with mitigation. 





Mitigation Measure M-HZ-2a: Prepare and Implement a Hazardous Material Handling 

and Disposal Plan 


The contractor shall prepare, submit to SFPUC, and implement a Hazardous Material 

Handling and Disposal Plan during construction of the project. The Hazardous Material 

Handling and Disposal Plan shall include, but would not be limited to, the following 

information: 

 

 

 

 

 

Results of the pre-construction hazardous assessment and descriptions of potential 

hazardous wastes to be generated. 

Onsite waste management protocols, which will require that all excavated materials 

suspected of being hazardous be inspected prior to initial stockpiling, and that 

excavated materials that are visibly stained, have noticeable odor, and/or are known 

or suspected to contain contaminants be stockpiled separately, to minimize the 

amount of material that may require special handling. 

Hazardous waste characterization protocols, and waste profiling and acceptance 

criteria. To properly evaluate suspected contaminated soil, a qualified professional 

will collect a representative sample and submit it to a California-certified laboratory 

for analysis of contaminants-of-concern. The analytical results will be used to classify 

the spoils as hazardous or nonhazardous waste, in accordance with applicable 

federal and state laws and regulations for offsite disposal at an appropriate disposal 

facility or for onsite reuse. 

Transportation and disposal for hazardous wastes in accordance with applicable 

federal and state regulations. 

Hazardous waste management documentation and reporting. 

Mitigation Measure M-HZ-2b: Develop and Implement a Hazardous Material 

Business Plan 

This mitigation measure applies to all project sites, as well as the common staging area. A 

Hazardous Material Business Plan (HMBP) shall be required when any of the following 

conditions are met: 

 

 

 

 

55 gallons or more of liquid hazardous material, such as fuel products, are present on 

site at any one project site; 

500 pounds of solid hazardous material are present at any one project site; 

200 cubic feet of compressed gases including flammable gases for welding are 

present at any one project site; 

Any amount of an extremely hazardous substance is present, as specified in 40 CFR 

Part 355, Appendix A or B; or 





 

Any amount of radiological materials that are present in quantities for which an 

emergency plan is required pursuant to 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, or 70. 

In the event that the above criteria are applicable to the construction activities, the 

contractor will prepare, submit to SFPUC, and implement a HMBP for the construction. 

The HMBP shall be certified by a qualified professional (such as a California-licensed 

civil engineer) from the contractor, and will include step-by-step procedures for the use, 

storage, and handling of hazardous materials during construction. The HMBP shall 

include, but not be limited to, the following elements: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Descriptions of planned operation for which the HMBP is applicable; 

Procedures for handling, transporting, storing, and disposing all hazardous materials 

used for the project component activities; 

Location where the hazardous materials are stored; 

Spill prevention protocols; 

Protocols including response equipment to address any accidental spill and releases 

of hazardous materials to be used during the operation; 

Personnel training requirement to implement the HMBP; and 

Emergency response and spill contingency protocols to address any emergencies and 

contingencies resulting from hazardous chemicals or waste from the project 

components. 

The HMBP will be prepared in compliance with the requirements of the local 

environmental department (San Mateo County, SMCEH Division). 

Mitigation Measure M-HZ-2c: Develop and Implement a Health and Safety Plan 


This mitigation measure will be applicable when any of the following conditions is 

observed: 

 

 

 

Handling of hazardous materials during construction is required; 

Visual signs of hazardous wastes are observed during construction; or 

Potential presence of hazardous wastes is anticipated for the construction activities. 

Prior to the start of any construction activities, the contractor shall prepare, submit to 

SFPUC, and implement a Health and Safety Plan (HASP) to address chemical hazards 

identified for the construction. The contractor shall not start any construction activities 

until the contractor receives SFPUC’s notification that all submittal requirements 

regarding the health and safety plan have been fulfilled in accordance with the project 

contract bid and specification documentation. 

The HASP shall be consistent with all applicable CCR Title 8 or other applicable 

regulations and SFPUC’s health and safety requirements. The HASP shall establish, in 





detail, the protocols necessary for the recognition, evaluation, and control of all hazards 

associated with the construction activities performed by the contractor and its 

subcontractors. The HASP will include, but not be limited to, the following major 

elements: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chemicals to be encountered, handled, or used; 

Chemical hazard analyses to identify potential health and safety hazards associated 

with the chemicals identified for the project; 

Chemical action levels for site worker safety; 

Name and qualifications of all the site health and safety personnel designated for the 

project; 

Health and safety organization for the project including, but not limited to, lines of 

authority, responsibility, and communication protocols 

Worker safety monitoring requirement and protocols; 

Confined space entry permit and plan, if applicable; 

Crane critical lift plan, if applicable; 

Fall protection and prevention plan; 

Personal protective equipment; 

Emergency response and contingency planning procedures, including emergency 

and first aid equipment; and information on the nearest emergency room, including 

address, phone number, and routing from each of the project sites; and 

Inspection, incident investigation, and reporting requirements, including 

documentation and record keeping procedures. 

Impact HZ-3: Project construction would not result in emissions or use of hazardous 

materials or substances within 0.25 mile of a school during construction. (Less than 

Significant) 

Seven schools are identified within 0.25 mile of the proposed project sites as measured from the 

nearest location of the school property to the proposed project sites. The schools within the 

project vicinity are: 

 

 

 

Baden High School, 825 Southwood Drive, South San Francisco, located approximately 

0.15 mile from the common staging area; 

Los Cerritos Elementary School, 210 West Orange Avenue, South San Francisco, located 

approximately 0.19 mile from the common staging area; 

Ponderosa Elementary School, 295 Ponderosa Road, South San Francisco, located 

approximately 0.25 mile from the common staging area; 





 

 

 

 

St. Veronica Catholic School, 434 Alida Way, South San Francisco, located approximately 

0.22 mile from the common staging area; 

Peninsula High School including Crayon College (daycare), 300 Piedmont Avenue, San 

Bruno, which would be adjacent to the project staging area at the San Bruno South Site; 

Meadows Elementary School, 1101 Helen Drive, Millbrae, located approximately 0.18 mile 

from the Millbrae Site; and 

Glen Oaks/Millbrae Montessori School, 797 Santa Margarita Avenue, Millbrae, located 

approximately 0.11 mile from the Millbrae Site. 

Previous uses of hazardous materials at the PPSU project sites were not identified, nor were 

environmental sites identified within the study areas that could adversely impact soil and 

groundwater quality. Additionally, NOA is not anticipated to be encountered during 

construction. Consequently, it is anticipated that there is a low potential to encounter hazardous 

materials in the soil and groundwater during construction. 

Project construction activities would include the use of hazardous materials such as fuels, 

lubricants, degreasers, paints and solvents. These materials are commonly used during 

construction, are not acutely hazardous, and would be used in small quantities. The U.S. EPA, 

Cal/EPA, DTSC, RWQCB, and the SMCEH Division mandate compliance with laws and 

regulations to ensure the safe transportation, use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials, 

as presented in Section 5.17.2, Regulatory Framework. Additionally, due to the nature of these 

materials and the small quantities that would be required, an accidental spill or release would be 

unlikely to result in significant impacts to the above-listed schools. Therefore, because the SFPUC 

and its contractors would be required to comply with hazardous materials laws and regulations 

covering the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials; and because of the nature and 

quantity of the hazardous materials, impacts from emissions or use of hazardous materials or 

substances within 0.25 mile of a school during construction would be less than significant. 

Impact HZ-4: Project construction would not cause public airport related aviation 

hazards during construction. (Less than Significant) 

The FAA has jurisdiction over the airspace in the United States, and the FAA requirements as 

they relate to land uses near the San Francisco International Airport (SFO). FAA requires 

notification of proposed construction or alteration projects identified by the following airport 

obstruction criterion related to the project sites: 

Any construction or alteration of greater height than an imaginary surface extending outward 

100 feet and upward 1 foot for a horizontal distance of 20,000 feet from the nearest point of the 

nearest runway of an airport with at least one runway more than 3,200 feet of actual length. 

Due to the elevation of the project sites and relative proximity to SFO, proposed construction 

activities may be subject to the above notification requirements related to navigable airspace at 

SFO (Chang, 2012). Compliance with these notification requirements would ensure that 

construction equipment and other temporary structures such as earth-moving equipment and 

stockpiles of equipment do not pose a hazard to navigable airspace. The SFPUC would comply 

with FAA regulations and would complete applicable notifications for the PPSU project, 

including FAA Form 7460-1 (Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration), as described in the 

San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan for FAA review. Pending response 





from FAA on the notification regarding compliance with FAA recommendations, the contractor 

may be required to use appropriate lighting and flagging on equipment, which would minimize 

the potential to create impacts. With compliance of the FAA notification requirement, the 

potential impact of aviation hazards during project construction would be less than significant. 

Impact HZ-5: Project construction would not impair implementation of, or physically 

interfere with, an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. (Less than 

Significant) 

Impact TR-2, described in Section 5.6, Transportation and Circulation, describes emergency 

access during project construction. As described under this impact, project construction would 

occur within or near the SFPUC ROW, and generally would not be located within the travel lanes 

of adjacent roadways, with the exception of staging at the San Bruno North site, and construction 

across Whitman Way at the San Bruno South site. Project construction activities would not 

require full closures of any streets, except for intermittent temporary closures associated with 

large truck and equipment maneuvering; emergency vehicles would have continuous access to 

all public roadways. Therefore, the project would not impair implementation of or physically 

interfere with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan, and project impacts 


5.17.3.5 Operational Impacts 



conditions, there would be no impacts associated with project operations. 


Impact C-HZ: Construction of the proposed project could result in a cumulatively 

considerable contribution to cumulative impacts related to hazards and hazardous 

materials. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) 

The geographic scope for cumulative impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials 

includes the project area and a 1,000-foot buffer zone of the project area. With respect to 

hazardous materials in the environment, effects are generally limited to site-specific conditions. 

The Groundwater Storage and Recovery (GSR) project areas in Colma and South San Francisco is 

the only cumulative project within the 1,000-foot buffer zone of the PPSU project, and therefore is 

the one project considered for the cumulative impact analyses. 

Create a Significant Hazard to the Public or the Environment 

Cumulative impacts related to exposure to hazards and hazardous materials in soil and 

groundwater could occur if the cumulative project construction activities entailed the excavation 

and/or groundwater dewatering within contaminated areas. In addition, construction of the 

cumulative projects could result in accidental release of hazardous construction materials. These 

releases could occur in proximity to schools. Therefore, cumulative impacts related to the 

accidental release of hazardous construction chemicals into the environment or upset of 





contaminated soils or groundwater and release of hazardous materials during construction of the 

PPSU project and the GSR project is considered potentially significant. 

As discussed under Impact HZ-1, the construction of the PPSU project would use hazardous 

materials, including petroleum fuels and lubricants for earth-moving equipment, and flammable 

gases for welding. Use of these substances would be reduced to less-than-significant levels by 

compliance with regulations. As discussed under Impact HZ-2, there is a low potential to 

encounter hazardous materials in the soil and groundwater during construction activities for the 

PPSU project, because the environmental database reviews completed for the project did not 

identify any permitted hazardous materials uses or environmental cases in the vicinity that are 

likely to have adversely impacted soil and groundwater quality. However, unknown hazardous 

soils or groundwater could be excavated or released from the sites, or accidents could result in a 

release of hazardous materials used during construction. Therefore, the PPSU project together 

with the GSR could result in a significant cumulative impact. 

As discussed under Impact HZ-3, the use of hazardous materials during construction would be 

similar to standard construction practices, and would be required to comply with hazardous 

materials laws and regulations covering the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials. 

Therefore, the PPSU project’s contribution to cumulative impacts pertaining to emissions or use of 

hazardous materials or substances within 0.25 mile of a school would be de minimis and less than 

significant. 

The proposed project’s contribution to cumulative impacts pertaining to hazards to the public or 

the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the 

release of hazardous materials into the environment would be reduced with the implementation 

of Mitigation Measure M-HZ-2a: Prepare and Implement a Hazardous Material Handling and 

Disposal Plan; Mitigation Measure M-HZ-2b: Develop and Implement a Hazardous Material 

Business Plan; Mitigation Measure M-HZ-2c: Develop and Implement a Health and Safety 

Plan; and Mitigation Measure M-HY-1: Preparation and Implementation of a Storm Water 

Pollution Prevention Plan (see Section 5.16, Hydrology and Water Quality), and through 

compliance with applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations. Together, these 

measures and requirement for compliance with applicable laws and regulations would ensure 

that impacts related to exposure to hazardous materials are minimized and/or avoided. (Similar 

types of effects that could occur on the GSR project at Colma and South San Francisco sites would 

be mitigated through site-specific mitigation measures appropriate for that project, and the GSR 

project would also be required to comply with applicable laws and regulations.) Therefore, the 

project’s contribution to the identified cumulative impacts would not be cumulatively 

considerable (less than significant with mitigation). 

Cause Public Airport Related Aviation Hazards 

The PPSU project and GSR project areas in Colma and South San Francisco are located within an 

area subject to compliance with FAA regulations. The PPSU project and GSR project would be in 

compliance with FAA requirements through completion of notifications, including FAA 

Form 7460-1 (Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration), as applicable. FAA will identify 

whether site-specific requirements would be needed to avoid aviation hazards related to public 

airports, based on the review of the notification from each project. With compliance with sitespecific 

FAA requirements, if any, the PPSU project and GSR project areas in Colma and South 





San Francisco are not anticipated to pose aviation hazards to the public airport (i.e. San Francisco 

International Airport). Therefore, potential cumulative impacts would be less than significant. 

Impair Implementation of or Physically Interfere with an Emergency Response Plan or 

Emergency Evacuation Plan 

At the Colma site, a portion of the adjacent Kohl’s department store site would be used as a 

staging area for both the GSR project and the PPSU project. This would allow for installation of a 

construction trailer to be used for both projects, and would occupy only a small portion of the 

rear of the Kohl’s site next to the SFPUC ROW, displacing approximately 40 parking spaces. The 

SFPUC would coordinate traffic control plans for each project to ensure that emergency vehicle 

access to the rear of the building would be maintained. Cumulative impacts at Colma would 

therefore be less than significant. 

Project construction activities for the GSR project and the PPSU project would occur within or 

near the SFPUC ROW in South San Francisco, and would not impede access through travel lanes 

of adjacent roadways. Therefore, there would be no cumulative interference with emergency 

response plans or emergency evacuation plans at this location, and cumulative impacts would be 


There would be no cumulative impacts relating to interference with an emergency response plan 

or emergency evacuation plan at the San Bruno or Millbrae sites, because there are no cumulative 

projects that could combine with each other or the PPSU project to cause this type of impact. 

Therefore, there would be no impact. 


CAL FIRE (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection), 2008. San Mateo County, Very 

High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA, as recommended by CAL FIRE, November 24. 

Available online at: www.fire.ca.gov/fire_prevention/fhsz_maps/fhsz_maps_sanmateo.php. 

CAL FIRE (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection), 2007. San Mateo County, Fire 

Hazard Severity Zones in SRA, adopted by CAL FIRE on November 7. Available online at: 

www.fire.ca.gov/fire_prevention/fhsz_maps/fhsz_maps_sanmateo.php. 

Chang, Randy, 2012. Personal communication between Randy Chang, FAA San Francisco Airport 

District Office Lead Program Manager, and Randy Young, AEW Engineering, Inc. October 5. 

CRA (Conestoga-Rovers & Associates), 2010. Well Installation Report and First Quarter 2010 

Groundwater Monitoring Report, former Standard Oil Substation 30-9379, 972 El Camino Real, 

South San Francisco, California, San Mateo County Site #550196. March 9. 

EDR (Environmental Data Resources Inc.), 2011a. The EDR Radius Map TM Report with GeoCheck 

dated October 20, 2011, Colma Project Site and the EDR-City Directory Abstract, October 26, 

2011. 

EDR (Environmental Data Resources Inc.), 2011b. The EDR Radius Map TM Report with GeoCheck 

dated October 20, 2011, South San Francisco Project Site and the EDR-City Directory Abstract, 

October 26, 2011. 





EDR (Environmental Data Resources Inc.), 2011c. The EDR Radius Map TM Report with GeoCheck 

dated October 21, 2011, San Bruno North Site and the EDR-City Directory Abstract, October 26, 

2011. 

EDR (Environmental Data Resources Inc.), 2011d. The EDR Radius Map TM Report with GeoCheck 

dated May 31, 2011, PPSU San Bruno and the EDR-City Directory Abstract, June 14, 2011. 

EDR (Environmental Data Resources Inc.), 2011e. The EDR Radius Map TM Report with GeoCheck 

dated May 31, 2011, PPSU Millbrae and the EDR-City Directory Abstract, June 20, 2011. 

GTC (Geotechnical Consultants, Inc.), 2011. Draft Addendum to the Geotechnical Data Report, 

SFPUC Peninsula Pipelines Seismic Upgrade Project. August. 

FAA (U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration), 2012. General 

Aviation Airports: A National Asset. May. 

San Mateo County Airport Land Use Commission, 1996. San Mateo County Comprehensive 

Airport Land Use Plan, Half Moon Bay Airport Land Use Plan, San Carlos Airport Land Use 

Plan, San Francisco International Airport Land Use Plan. December. 

San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office of Emergency Services and Homeland Security, 2011. San 

Mateo County Emergency Operations Plan. January 28. 









This section describes existing mineral and energy resources in the vicinity of the proposed 

Peninsula Pipelines Seismic Upgrade (PPSU) project and evaluates the potential mineral and 

energy impacts of the proposed project. Mitigation measures to avoid or reduce adverse impacts 

are identified, as appropriate. 


5.18.1.1 Mineral Resources 

Based on the geologic units underlying the PPSU project sites and vicinity, no known mineral 

resources are located in or adjacent to the project sites (Rice, 2012). 

5.18.1.2 Energy Resources 

This section provides an overview of the existing energy supply in the state, region and at the 

PPSU site. 

State Overview 

California’s electricity is supplied by several sources. Data for 2010 indicate these sources include 

natural gas (41.9 percent), coal (7.7 percent), large hydroelectric plants (10.8 percent), nuclear 

(13.9 percent), and renewables (13.7 percent), with 12 percent coming from unspecified sources 

(CEC, 2012a). Despite California’s policies aimed at diversifying the state’s electrical supply, 

natural gas continues to be an important source of the state’s energy, from 45.2 percent in 2007 

and 53.4 percent in 2008 to 41.0 percent in 2010 (CEC, 2009; CEC, 2012a). 

Public Utilities Code Section 399.11 – 399.19, established in 2002 under Senate Bill 1078 and 

modified in 2006 under Senate Bill 107, required investor-owned utilities, electric service 

providers and community choice aggregators regulated by the California Public Utilities 

Commission to procure an additional 1 percent of retail sales per year from eligible renewable 

sources until 20 percent is reached, by no later than 2010. Revised estimates by the California 

Public Utilities Commission indicate that investor-owned utilities will meet the 20 percent 

Renewable Portfolio Standard by 2013 to 2014. The state's load serving entities are required to 

meet a 33 percent renewable energy target by 2020 (CEC, 2012b). 

Regional Overview 

Energy Providers 

San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) Power Enterprise. The SFPUC Power 

Enterprise (formerly Hetch Hetchy Water and Power System) provides a long-term annual 

average of 1.7 billion kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electrical power, which is generated by the 

SFPUC’s hydroelectric facilities in the Hetch Hetchy system. The Hetch Hetchy project comprises 

400 megawatts of hydroelectric power generation plants on the Tuolumne River, and 150 miles of 

high-voltage transmission lines linking Hetch Hetchy power to California’s electricity grid at 





Newark (SF Planning, 2008). The SFPUC Power Enterprise provides electricity to all City and 

County of San Francisco (CCSF) facilities (including tenants), the San Francisco International 

Airport and its tenants, Norris Industries (a federal facility), and the Modesto and Turlock 

Irrigation Districts (for municipal and agricultural pumping). While the quantity of power 

produced exceeds San Francisco’s municipal power needs on an annual basis, CCSF must 

supplement its power sources to meet municipal demand and its contractual obligations during 

the summer and fall months, when power generation is reduced so that water can be stored. 

Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E). PG&E provides natural gas and electricity to most of 

northern California. It provides SFPUC Power Enterprise with transmission and distribution 

services from Newark to the west, pursuant to an interconnection agreement regulated by the 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Under this agreement, PG&E transmits and distributes 

electricity to SFPUC Power Enterprise customers. PG&E is the primary provider of electrical 

power to the Town of Colma (Town of Colma, 1999) and the cities of South San Francisco (City of 

South San Francisco, 2011), San Bruno, (City of San Bruno, 2009), and Millbrae (City of Millbrae, 

1998). 

Energy Use 

The SFPUC customer base and generation base are distinguishable from other power supplies, 

and its load profile is relatively flat (i.e., not dramatically higher in the summer), because the 

milder climate does not drive increased demand that is typical of air-conditioning usage. Despite 

the overall surplus of energy produced, CCSF typically supplements its power supply with 

PG&E-produced power during fall and summer months in order to allow uninterrupted SFPUC 

operations (i.e., water storage) to occur while continuing to meet its municipal demand and 

contractual obligations for power supply. 

The SFPUC’s energy demand for operation of water facilities between Oakdale in the San Joaquin 

Valley and San Francisco is nearly 44 million kWh per year, which is less than 4 percent of the 

historical low production rate of the Hetch Hetchy system and less than 3 percent of the longterm 

annual average production rate (SF Planning, 2008). The SFPUC Power Enterprise (through 

connections with PG&E) provides power in the San Francisco Peninsula region, where existing 

SFPUC power usage is 24.4 million kWh (SF Planning, 2008). Electricity is distributed in both San 

Mateo County and San Francisco County via local lines that are owned and operated by PG&E. 



There are no federal regulations governing mineral resources that apply to the proposed project. 

National Energy Policy Act of 2005 

The National Energy Policy Act of 2005 sets equipment energy-efficiency standards, and seeks to 

reduce reliance on nonrenewable energy resources and provide incentives to reduce current 

demand on these resources. For example, under the act, consumers and businesses can attain 

federal tax credits for: purchasing fuel-efficient appliances and products, including hybrid 

vehicles; constructing energy-efficient buildings; and improving the energy efficiency of 





commercial buildings. Additionally, tax credits are available for the installation of qualified fuel 

cells, stationary microturbine power plants, and solar power equipment. 

5.18.2.2 State 

Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 

Pursuant to the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA), the California Geological 

Survey has evaluated areas of California for mineral resource potential and has classified the land 

accordingly. One of the objectives of SMARA is to identify areas of the state that contain 

significant mineral resources so these lands can be set aside for uses that are compatible with 

possible future mining. Natural resources that are identified include air, minerals, water, sand 

and gravel, timber, energy, and other resources used for construction and operation. Under 

SMARA, protected mineral resources include construction materials, industrial and chemical 

mineral materials, metallic and rare minerals, and nonfluid mineral fuels. Non-fuel mineral 

resources include metals such as gold, silver, iron, and copper; industrial minerals such as boron 

compounds, rare-earth elements, clays, limestone, gypsum, salt, and dimension stone; and 

construction aggregate, which include sand, gravel, and crushed stone. 

In the land classification scheme adopted by the California Geological Survey, four types of 

Mineral Resource Zones (MRZs) are identified: 

 

 

 

 

MRZ-1 for areas of no mineral resource significance; 

MRZ-2 for areas identified as having mineral resource significance; and 

MRZ-3 for areas containing mineral resources that cannot be classified as significant because 

of inadequate data; and 

MRZ-4 for to areas where no known minerals occur, and where geologic data do not provide 

sufficient information to support a definite determination as to the area’s mineral potential. 

No known mineral resources are located in the project area as designated by SMARA. 

California 2008 Energy Action Plan 

The State of California 2008 Energy Action Plan Update is the state’s principal energy planning 

and policy document (State of California, 2008). The updated document examines the state’s 

ongoing actions in the context of global climate change. The 2008 Energy Action Plan updates 

previous action plans, including the 2005 Energy Action Plan II which continues the goals of the 

original 2003 Energy Action Plan. The Plan describes a coordinated implementation plan for state 

energy policies, and identifies specific action areas to ensure that California’s energy resources 

are adequate, affordable, technologically advanced, and environmentally sound. In accordance 

with this plan, the first-priority actions to address California’s increasing energy demands are 

energy efficiency and demand response (i.e., reduction of customer energy usage during peak 

periods to address system reliability and support the best use of energy infrastructure). 

Additional priorities include the use of renewable sources of power and distributed generation 

(i.e., the use of relatively small power plants near or at centers of high demand). To the extent 

that these actions are unable to satisfy the increasing energy demand and transmission capacity 

needs, clean and efficient fossil fuel-fired generation is supported. 





The Energy Action Plan II included the following energy efficiency action specific to water 

supply systems: 

Identify opportunities and support programs to reduce electricity demand 

related to the water supply system during peak hours, and opportunities to 

reduce the energy needed to operate water conveyance and treatment systems. 

The California 2008 Energy Action Plan Update examines policy changes in the areas of energy 

efficiency, demand response, renewable energy, electricity reliability and infrastructure, 

electricity market structure, natural gas supply and infrastructure, research and development, 

and climate change. 

Building Energy Efficiency Standards 

The Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, as specified in 

Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), were established in 1978 in response 

to a legislative mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption. The standards are updated 

periodically to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency 

technologies and methods. The most recent update of the standards was adopted on April 23, 

2008 and went into effect August 1, 2009. 

Compliance with these standards is mandatory when new building permits are issued by city 

and county governments. These standards also promote cost-effective means to reduce energy 

use for new development relative to business-as-usual-conditions. California’s building efficiency 

standards (including standards for energy-efficient appliances) have saved more than $56 billion 

in electricity and natural gas costs since 1978 (CEC, 2009). It is estimated that an additional 

$23 billion will be saved by 2013. 

In addition, amendments to Title 24 CCR called the Green Building Standards Code (24 CCR 11) 

are currently in the rulemaking process. These largely voluntary standards would encourage 

building techniques that would substantially reduce energy consumption and water use below 

Title 24 standards. 

5.18.2.3 Local 

Applicable City of San Francisco energy policies are provided below. There are no applicable 

mineral or energy policies in San Mateo County, the Town of Colma, or the cities of South San 

Francisco, San Bruno, or Millbrae. 

San Francisco Plans 

Sustainability Plan for San Francisco 

The Sustainability Plan for San Francisco contains a set of general goals and specific objectives 

and actions for San Francisco to ensure that the city’s current energy needs are met without 

sacrificing the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (SFDE, 1996). The major 

energy goals expressed in the plan are to reduce overall power use by maximizing energy 

efficiency; to maintain an energy supply based on renewable, environmentally sound resources; 

to eliminate climate-changing and ozone-depleting emissions and toxic contaminants associated 





with energy production and use; and to base energy decisions on the goal of creating a 

sustainable society. 

Electricity Resource Plan 

The 2002 Electricity Resource Plan for San Francisco presented the initial action plan to meet the 

city’s growth in demand for electricity using renewable energy resources. Goals included in the 

2002 Electricity Resource Plan included the following: assure reliable power, maximize energy 

efficiency, develop renewable power, increase local control, affordable electric bills, improve air 

quality, support environmental justice and promote economic opportunities. The 2011 Updated 

Electricity Resource Plan reaffirms the on-going goals of the 2002 Electricity Resource Plan and 

details the next steps to help San Francisco achieve its goal of generating all of its energy needs 

from renewable and zero-greenhouse gas (GHG) electric energy sources by 2030. The updated 

plan is designed to cover all electrical energy needs in San Francisco, not just the electrical energy 

needs provided by the SFPUC to serve municipal facilities. The updated plan proposes three 

broad strategies to reduce GHG emissions from electricity: 

1. Empower San Francisco citizens and businesses to cost-effectively reduce GHG emissions 

associated with their own electric energy usage; 

2. Increase the amount of zero-GHG electricity supplied to the City of San Francisco’s 

customers from the wholesale energy market; and 

3. Continue and expand SFPUC electric service to guarantee reliable, reasonably-priced, and 

environmentally sensitive service to its customers. The 2011 Updated Electricity Resource 

Plan includes recommendations for implementation of each of these strategies. 



CCSF has not formally adopted significance standards for impacts related to mineral and energy 

resources, but generally considers that implementation of the proposed project would have a 

significant impact on mineral and energy resources if it would: 

 

 

 

Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the 

region and the residents of the state; 

Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site 

delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan; or 

Encourage activities that resulted in the use of large amounts of fuel, water, or energy, or 

used these resources in a wasteful manner. 


Because of the nature of the proposed project, there would be no impacts related to the following 

significance criteria. Therefore, an impact discussion is not provided for these topics for the 





5.18MineralandEnergyResources 

PPSUprojectoperationswouldhavenoimpactsrelatedtothefollowingsignificancecriterion: 

 

Encourageactivitiesthatwouldresultintheuseoflargeamountsoffuel,water,orenergy, 

or use these resources in a wasteful manner. Project operations would require a limited 

amountoffuel,waterandenergyuse,consistentwithexistingoperationsandmaintenance 

activities. These uses of resources would not be wasteful and would not be in excess of 

standardconstructionandoperationspractices.Thissignificancecriterionisdiscussedbelow 

underImpactME1onlyasitappliestoprojectconstructionactivities. 

BothPPSUprojectconstructionandoperationswouldhavenoimpactsrelatedtothefollowing 

significancecriterion: 

 

Resultinthelossofavailabilityofaknownmineralresourceofvaluetotheregionorstateor 

ofalocallyimportantmineralresourcerecoverysite.Theproposedprojectwouldbelocated 

within the existing SFPUC rightofway in the same location as the existing SFPUC water 

transmissionpipelines.Theproposedprojectsitesarenotlocatedonlandswithaknownmineral 

resource or an area with a locally important mineral resource recovery site. Therefore, these 

significancecriteriaarenotapplicabletotheproposedprojectandarenotanalyzedfurther. 

5.18.3.3 ImpactAnalysis 

Table5.181 summarizes the proposed project’s impacts on minerals and energy, and the 

resultingsignificancedetermination. 

Table5.181 

SummaryofImpacts–MineralandEnergyResources 

Impacts 

ImpactME1:Projectconstructionwouldnotencourageactivities 

thatwouldresultintheuseoflargeamountsoffuel,water,or 

energy,orusetheseresourcesinawastefulmanner. 

ImpactCME:Projectimplementationwouldnotresultina 

cumulativelyconsiderablecontributiontotheuseoffuel,water,or 

energyresourcesinawastefulmanner. 

Significance 

Determination 

LS 

LS 

Notes: 

LS=LessthanSignificantimpact 

5.18.3.4 ConstructionImpactsandMitigationMeasures 

ImpactME1:Projectconstructionwouldnotencourageactivitiesthatwouldresultin 

theuseoflargeamountsoffuel,water,orenergy,orusetheseresourcesinawasteful 

manner.(LessthanSignificant) 

Construction of the proposed project would require the use of fuel, water, and energy during 

construction.Fuelwouldincludegas,diesel,andmotoroiltooperateavarietyofconstruction 

equipmentlistedinTable36oftheProjectDescription.Inaddition,fuelwouldberequiredfor 



March2013


5.18MineralandEnergyResources 

construction worker commuting, but this would be minor in comparison to the fuel used by 

constructionequipment.Energywouldbeusedtooperatemobileofficefacilities,lighting,and 

some equipment. Construction activities requiring fuel and energy would vary at each project 

site,rangingfrom1monthto9months,withatotaldurationof12monthsfortheentirePPSU 

project. 

Water would be used for dust control and other purposes, including dewatering, hydrostatic 

testing, and disinfection of the pipeline, as described in Section5.16, Hydrology and Water 

Quality. The total amount of water to be discharged during construction activities would be 

approximately13.5milliongallons,asdescribedinChapter3,ProjectDescription. 

Theuseoffuel,energy,andwaterwouldbeashorttermuseoftheseresources,consistentwith 

current construction practices. Such constructionrelated uses of resources are typical of 

constructionpracticesforprojectsofasimilarnature,andtheseresourceswouldnotbeusedina 

wastefulmanner.Inaddition,theuseoftheseresourceswouldnotencouragesubsequentuseof 

resourcesinawastefulmanner. 

PoliciesandplansaswellasmitigationmeasuresdescribedinthisEnvironmentalImpactReport 

wouldrequireorencouragefuelandenergyefficiency.Exhaustcontrolsandreductionofidling 

times—as well as equipment maintenance required by the Bay Area Air Quality Management 

District,describedinSection5.8,AirQuality—wouldsupportfuelefficiency.Implementationof 

theGreenhouseGasMeasuresdescribedinChapter3,ProjectDescription,andenergyefficiency 

programsbytheSFPUC,includingthosedescribedinSanFrancisco’sSustainability,Electricity, 

Resource,andClimateActionPlans(i.e.,greeningvehiclefleetsandincreasingenergyefficiency), 

wouldfurtherreducethepotentialforthewastefuluseoffuels.Therefore,constructionimpacts 

relatedtomineralorenergyresourceswouldbelessthansignificant. 

5.18.3.5 OperationImpactsandMitigationMeasures 

Asdescribedabove,implementationoftheproposedprojectoperationwouldresultinnoimpact 

relatedtomineralorenergyresources.Therefore,nomitigationmeasuresrelatedtothisresource 

topicarenecessary. 

5.18.3.6 CumulativeImpactsandMitigationMeasures 

ImpactCME:Projectimplementationwouldnotresultinacumulativelyconsiderable 

contributiontotheuseoffuel,water,orenergyresourcesinawastefulmanner.(Less 

thanSignificant) 

ConstructionofthePPSUprojectandotherreasonablyforeseeableprojectslistedinTable5.11, 

Cumulative Project List, would require the use of fuel, water, and energy during construction 

and operations. Each of the projects would require fuel and energy to operate construction 

equipment, and could use water during construction activities. However, constructionrelated 

uses of resources would be typical of standard construction practices, and would not be 

anticipatedtouseorencouragetheuseofresourcesinawastefulmanner. 

Therefore, the cumulative impact to fuel, water, and energy resources would be less than 

significant. 



March2013




CEC (California Energy Commission), 2009. Net System Power Report, July 2009. Online: 

www.energy.ca.gov/2009publications/CEC-200-2009-010/CEC-200-2009-010-CMF.PDF. Accessed 

July 7, 2012. 

CEC (California Energy Commission), 2012a. Energy Almanac Total Electricity System Power. 

Online: energyalmanac.ca.gov/electricity/total_system_power.html. Accessed July 7, 2012 

CEC (California Energy Commission), 2012b. Climate Action Team Energy Working Group Near- 

Term Implementation Plan Online: climatechange.ca.gov/climate_action_team/reports/catnip/ 

energy/Energy%202%20Renewables%20CATNIP.pdf. Accessed July 7, 2012. 

City of Millbrae, 1998. City of Millbrae General Plan, 1998-2015. Adopted November 24, 1998. 


City of South San Francisco, 2011. General Plan. October 13. 

Rice, Ray. 2012. Personal correspondence between Alissa Stillman, URS and Ray Rice, Principal 

Engineering Geologist, URS. July 12, 2012. 


Program Environmental Impact Report on the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission’s Water 

System Improvement Program, San Francisco Planning Department File No. 2005.0159E. October 

2008. 

San Mateo County, 1999. Environmental Services Agency Planning and Building Division. 

Zoning Regulations. July. 

SFDE (San Francisco Department of the Environment), 1996. Sustainability Plan for San 

Francisco. Online at: www.sfenvironment.com/aboutus/policy/sustain/. October 1996. 

State of California, 2008. 2008 Energy Action Plan Update. February. Online: www.energy.ca.gov/ 

2008publications/CEC-100-2008-001/CEC-100-2008- 001.PDF. Accessed June 1, 2012. 




5.19 Agriculture and Forest Resources 

This section describes existing agricultural and forest resources in the vicinity of the proposed 

Peninsula Pipelines Seismic Upgrade (PPSU) project, and analyzes the potential for project 

implementation to adversely affect such resources. Mitigation measures to avoid or reduce 



As described in Section 5.2, Land Use and Land Use Planning, the PPSU project sites are located 

in urban developed areas and are generally surrounded by commercial, residential, recreation 

and open space uses. The project sites are primarily located within the San Francisco Public 

Utilities Commission (SFPUC) right-of-way (ROW), which can be generally characterized as open 

vegetated lands within the project vicinity. 

5.19.1.1 Agricultural Resources 

Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program 

The California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, maps 

important farmlands throughout California. Important farmlands are classified into the 

categories listed below on the basis of soil conditions (their suitability for agriculture) and current 

land use. 

 

 

 

 

Prime Farmland. This category represents farmland with the best combination of physical 

and chemical characteristics for long-term agricultural production. It has the soil quality, 

growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce sustained high yields of crops when 

treated and managed. In addition, the land must have been used for irrigated agricultural 

production in the last 4 years to qualify under this category. 

Farmland of Statewide Importance. Farmland of Statewide Importance is similar to Prime 

Farmland in that it has a good combination of physical and chemical characteristics for crop 

production, but with minor shortcomings, such as greater slopes and less ability to store 

moisture. 

Unique Farmland. This land does not meet the criteria for Prime Farmland or Farmland of 

Statewide Importance, but is land that has been used for the production of the state’s leading 

agricultural crops. This land is usually irrigated but may include nonirrigated orchards or 

vineyards, as found in some climatic zones of California. Unique Farmland must have been 

cropped at some time during the 4 years prior to the mapping date. 

Farmland of Local Importance. This category applies to land of importance to the local 

agricultural economy as determined by the county. This land is either currently producing 

crops or has the capability of production, but does not meet the criteria of the preceding 

categories. 





 

 

 

Grazing Land. Grazing Land is land on which the vegetation is suited to the grazing of 

livestock. 

Urban and Built-up Land. This land is occupied by structures with a building density of at 

least one unit to 1.5 acres, or approximately six structures on a 10-acre parcel. This land 

generally provides unfavorable conditions for agricultural production. 

Other Land. This is land that is not included in any of the categories above and may include 

brush, timber, wetlands, confined livestock areas, strip mines, and gravel pits, among other 

land types. 

In San Mateo County, the mapped areas of important farmland are concentrated along the Pacific 

coast and coastal valleys. Designations in the vicinity of the PPSU project consist of Urban and 

Built-up Land and Other Land, and there are no important mapped farmlands or existing 

agricultural resources in the project vicinity (CDC, 2008). 

5.19.1.2 Forest Resources 

Section 12220(g) of the California Public Resources Code defines forest land as “land that can 

support 10 percent native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural 

conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest resources, including timber, 

aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits.” 

Timberland is land (other than land owned by the federal government and land designated by 

the California Board of Forestry and Fire Protection as experimental forest land) that is available 

for and capable of growing a crop of trees of any commercial species used to produce lumber and 

other forest products. 

The project site is located in an urban area and there are no lands classified as forest land or 

timberland within the vicinity (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, 2003). See 

Section 5.11, Recreation, for a description of recreational resources and Section 5.14, Biological 

Resources, for a description of biological habitats in the project area. 



The Farmland Protection and Policy Act requires an evaluation of the relative value of farmland 

that could be affected by decisions sponsored in whole or part by the federal government. The 

Farmland Protection and Policy Act would not apply to the proposed project because the project 

is not a federal government action or program. 

5.19.2.2 State 

The California Land Conservation Act of 1965, commonly referred to as the Williamson Act, 

provides financial incentives, through reduced property taxes, to deter the conversion of 

farmland and open space preserves to other land uses. The act enables local governments to enter 

into contracts with private landowners to ensure that specific parcels are kept in agricultural or 





open space use as agricultural preserves. There are no agricultural resources in the project area 

under a Williamson Act contract; therefore, this State regulation is not applicable. 

5.19.2.3 Local 

Agriculture and forest policies for jurisdictions within the project areas are provided below for 

San Mateo County and the Town of Colma. There are no applicable agriculture or forestry 

regulations for the cities of San Bruno, South San Francisco, or Millbrae. 

Objective 6.12 of the Park and Recreation Resource Policies in the San Mateo County General 

Plan was established to minimize agricultural land use conflicts. This was established to 

“Preserve the best agricultural land for agricultural uses. On other lands capable of supporting 

agriculture, permit the location of park and recreation facilities when efforts are made to lease 

land not needed for recreational purposes to farm operations, and clearly defined buffer areas 

such as strips of land are established between these two uses to minimize land use conflicts” (San 

Mateo County, 1986). The proposed project would not be located on agricultural lands; therefore, 

this policy would not apply to the project. 

The Open Space and Conservation Element of the Town of Colma General Plan (Section 5.04.125) 

was established to aid in continuing nursery and greenhouse operations. Additionally, 

agricultural land is located on privately maintained open space, which is commonly under lease 

from cemetery owners who are holding land that will, one day, be needed for gravesites. The 

proposed project would not be located on open space land used for agricultural uses; therefore, 

this policy would not apply to the project within the Town of Colma (Town of Colma, 2000). 




impacts related to agricultural or forestry resources, but generally considers that implementation 

of the proposed project would have a significant impact on agricultural or forestry resources if it 

would: 

 

 

 

 

 

Convert prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance, as shown 

on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the 

California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use; 

Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract; 

Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public 

Resources Code Section 12220[g]) or timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code 

Section 4526); 

Result in the loss of forest land or the conversion of forest land to nonforest use; or 

Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could 

result in the conversion of farmland to nonagricultural use or forest land to nonforest use. 






Due to the nature of the proposed project, there would be no construction or operations impacts 

related to the significance criteria for agriculture and forestry for the reasons described below: 

 

 

 

Convert prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance, as shown 

on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the 

California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use or Conflict with Zoning for 

Agricultural Use or with a Williamson Act Contract. The proposed project would be located 

within the existing SFPUC ROW in the same location as the existing water transmission 

pipeline. The proposed project sites are not located on lands designated as farmland by the 

Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, nor are the sites zoned for agricultural uses or 

subject to a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, the proposed project would not convert 

farmland to nonagricultural uses or conflict with zoning for agricultural uses or a Williamson 

Act contract. These significance criteria are not applicable to the proposed project and are not 


Conflict with existing zoning for forest land or timberland, or result in the loss of forest 

land or the conversion of forest land to nonforest use. The proposed project is not located 

on lands zoned as forest land or timberland, nor are there forestry uses on the project sites. 

As described above, the project sites are located in urban areas, within the existing SFPUC 

ROW. The proposed project would not change the existing land uses in on the sites. 

Therefore, these significance criteria related to forest lands and timberlands are not 

applicable to the proposed project and are not analyzed further. 

Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, 

could result in the conversion of farmland to nonagricultural use or forest land to nonforest 

use. As described above, the proposed project would not result in changes to the existing land 

uses at the project sites. Because the character of the project area is urban/developed, the sites 

are located within existing communities, and farmland and forest land resources are not 

located within the vicinity, the proposed project would not directly or indirectly cause the 

conversion of farmland to nonagricultural use or forest land to nonforest use. Therefore, this 

significance criterion is not applicable to the proposed project and is not analyzed further. 



to agriculture or forest resources. Therefore, no mitigation measures related to this resource topic 

are necessary, and there would be no impact. 


Implementation of the proposed project would not result in cumulative impacts related to 

agriculture or forest resources because the project would not cause any project-specific impacts 

related to this resource topic, and there would be no impact. 






CDC (California Department of Conservation), 2008. Division of Land Resource Protection, San 

Mateo County Important Farmland 2006. Published February 2008. 

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, 2003. Fire and Resource Assessment 

Program Land Cover Map. Available online at: www.frap.cdf.ca.gov/data/frapgismaps/select. 

asp?theme=3. Accessed May 31, 2012. 

San Mateo County, Department of Environmental Management Planning and Building Division, 

1986. General Plan Policies. November. 

Town of Colma, 2000. General Plan – Open Space and Conservation Element. April. 




CHAPTER 6 

 

This chapter addresses the growth-inducement potential, cumulative impacts, significant 

environmental effects that cannot be avoided if the project is implemented, and significant 

irreversible impacts of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission’s (SFPUC) proposed 

Peninsula Pipelines Seismic Upgrade (PPSU) project. 

6.1 Growth Inducement 

This section analyzes the growth-inducement potential of the proposed project, as required by 

the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d) requires 

that an environmental impact report (EIR) evaluate the growth-inducing impacts of a project. A 

growth-inducing impact is defined as follows: 

[T]he ways in which the project could foster economic or population growth, or 

the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the 

surrounding environment. Included in this are projects which would remove 

obstacles to population growth…. It must not be assumed that growth in any 

area is necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the 

environment. 

The environmental effects of project-induced growth are secondary or indirect impacts of the 

project. Growth can result in a variety of indirect environmental impacts, including increased 

demand on community services and public service infrastructure; increased traffic and noise; and 

degradation of air and water quality. 

6.1.1 Approach to Analysis 

Based on the CEQA definition above, assessing the growth-inducement potential of the proposed 

project involves determining whether or not construction and/or operation of the proposed 

seismic upgrades to San Andreas Pipeline No. 2, San Andreas Pipeline No. 3, and Sunset Supply 

Branch Pipeline remove an obstacle to growth and therefore directly or indirectly support more 

economic or population growth or residential construction in the surrounding environment. 

6.1.2 Growth Inducement Analysis 

The San Francisco Planning Department prepared a detailed analysis of the growth-inducement 

potential of the SFPUC’s current water supply strategy as part of the Program Environmental 



6. Other CEQA Issues 

Impact Report (PEIR) for the Water System Improvement Program (WSIP) (SF Planning 

Department, 2008). The PPSU project was not identified as a WSIP project, and was not evaluated 

in the PEIR. The need for the project was identified only as a result of geotechnical investigations 

for the Harry Tracy Water Treatment Plant Long-Term Improvements project, which is a WSIP 

facility improvement project. As described in Section 2.2.2, this project has “independent utility” 

from the overall WSIP program. While the project would contribute to the overall improved 

system reliability provided by the WSIP, its primary purpose is to reduce the risk of pipeline 

failure at locations along the San Andreas Pipeline No. 2, San Andreas Pipeline No. 3, and Sunset 

Supply Branch Pipeline that are susceptible to liquefaction, ground shaking, and landslides 

during a seismic event. The project would not contribute to the growth-inducement effects of the 

WSIP for the following reasons: 

 

 

 

 

 

The project is necessary and would serve its intended purpose irrespective of any other WSIP 

project; 

The project proposes replacement and stabilization of segments of the existing pipelines, and 

would not increase the normal operating capacity of the regional water system; 

The project would not change the manner in which water is dispersed, increase the storage 

capacity of the regional system, or increase or alter the nature of the treatment capacity of the 

system; 

Potential cumulative impacts associated with the project are adequately addressed by the 

cumulative impact analysis in this EIR; and 

Proceeding with the project does not commit the SFPUC to any other project, including the 

WSIP facility improvement projects. 

The proposed project would minimize interruptions of water delivery during and following a 

seismic event by minimizing seismic vulnerabilities at the Serra Fault crossing locations and at 

the liquefaction-susceptible zones. As discussed above and in Chapter 3, Project Description, the 

pipeline sizing and design capacity of the proposed improvements would be the same as those of 

the existing pipelines and associated infrastructure. The project would not increase the overall 

operating capacity of the regional water system; and project implementation would not facilitate 

an increase in water deliveries in the SFPUC’s service area. In addition, the project would not 

directly foster economic or population growth or the construction of housing. Therefore, for the 

reasons listed above, implementation of the project would not remove an obstacle to growth (in 

the form of increased capacity to convey additional water supplies), and would not have a direct 

growth-inducing impact. 

6.2 Summary of Cumulative Impacts 

The potential cumulative impacts of the proposed project are described in each environmental 

resource section in Chapter 5, and are summarized in Table 6-1 on the following page. 




Table 6-1 

Summary of Cumulative Impacts 

Impact 

Impact C-LU: Cumulative disruption or displacement of existing land uses, 

and effects on the existing character of the project vicinity. 

Impact C-AE: Cumulative impacts on scenic resources, visual character, 

and new sources of light and glare. 

Significance of 

Project’s 

Contribution to 

Impact Before 

Mitigation 

S 

LS 

Significance 

Determination 

After 

Mitigation 

Impact C-PH: Cumulative impacts on population and housing. NI NI 

Impact C-CP: Cumulative impacts on historical, archaeological, and 


Impact C-TR: Cumulative impacts related to increases in traffic and traffic 

hazards, access, and parking. 

Impact C-NO: Cumulative impacts related to increases in noise and vibration. S LSM 

Impact C-AQ: Cumulative impacts related to violations of air quality 

standards, increases in emissions of criteria air pollutants, and exposure of 

sensitive receptors to pollutants. 

Impact C-GHG: Cumulative impacts related to increases in greenhouse gas 

emissions. 

Impact C-WS: Cumulative impacts related to increases in wind and shadow. NI NI 

Impact C-RE: Cumulative impacts on recreational facilities. LS LS 

Impact C-UT: Cumulative impacts related to disruption or relocation of 

utilities, landfill capacity, and compliance with solid waste statutes and 

regulations. 

Impact C-PS: Cumulative impacts related to effects on public services. NI NI 

Impact C-BI: Implementation of the proposed project would result in a 

cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative impact on biological 

resources during project construction. 

Impact C-GE: Cumulative impacts related to seismic hazards, soil erosion, 

unstable geologic units, expansive soils, and changes to topography. 

Impact C-HY: Cumulative impacts related to degradation of water quality, 

depletion of groundwater resources, and flooding. 

Impact C-HZ: Cumulative impacts related to a release of hazardous 

materials into the environment and impairment of or interference with 

implementation of an adopted emergency plan. 

Impact C-ME: Cumulative impacts related to the use of large amounts of 

mineral or energy resources or wasteful use of these resources. 

Impact C-AF: Cumulative impacts related to agricultural and forest resources. NI NI 

Source: PPSU project analysis, URS. 

Notes: 

NI = No Impact or Not Applicable 

LS = Less-than-Significant impact 


S = Significant impact 

S 

S 

S 

LS 

S 

S 

S 

S 

S 

LS 

LSM 

LS 

LSM 

LSM 

LSM 

LS 

LSM 

LSM 

LSM 

LSM 

LSM 

LS 




6.3 Significant Environmental Effects that Cannot Be 

Avoided if the Proposed Project is Implemented 

In accordance with Section 21067 of CEQA, and with Sections 15126(b) and 15126.2(b) of the 

CEQA Guidelines, the purpose of this section is to identify project-related environmental 

impacts that could not be eliminated or reduced to a less-than-significant level with the 

implementation of all identified mitigation measures. The findings in this chapter are subject to 

final determination by the San Francisco Planning Commission as part of its certification of this 

EIR. 

This section identifies project-related impacts that would remain potentially significant or 

significant, even with the implementation of all identified mitigation measures. Chapter 5, 

Environmental Setting and Impacts, describes the potential environmental impacts of the 

proposed project, and identifies mitigation measures to reduce those impacts. Most impacts 

associated with the project would occur during the construction phase as opposed to the 

operations phase. Although construction impacts would be temporary, some of these impacts 

could be significant, as described in Chapter 5. With the exception of the significant and 

unavoidable impacts described below, all other significant construction impacts would be 

eliminated or reduced to less-than-significant levels by the identified mitigations measures. 

The four significant and unavoidable impacts associated with construction of the project are: 

 

 

 

 

Daytime construction noise associated with heavy equipment (Impact NO-1); 

Nighttime construction noise associated with heavy equipment (Impact NO-2); 

Generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise 

ordinance (Impact NO-3); and 

Generation of excessive groundborne vibration from use of heavy equipment 

(Impact NO-4). 

Mitigation measures would reduce construction noise and vibration adjacent to receptors; 

however, noise levels would exceed the speech interference criterion at houses within 50 feet of 

construction activities, even after implementation of mitigation measures, and vibration levels 

would exceed the nighttime annoyance threshold at houses with 190 feet of nighttime 

construction activities, even after implementation of mitigation measures, resulting in a 

significant and unavoidable impact related to noise and vibration (Impacts NO-1, NO-2, NO-3, 

and NO-4). 

6.4 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes 

In accordance with Section 21100(b)(2)(B) of the CEQA, and with Sections 15126(c) and 15126.2(c) 

of the CEQA Guidelines, the purpose of this section is to identify significant irreversible 

environmental changes that would be caused by implementation of the project. Construction 

impacts associated with implementation of the project would result in an irretrievable and 

irreversible commitment of natural resources through the use of fossil fuels and construction 

materials. Project construction would involve only minor, incremental use of nonrenewable 




irreversible commitment of natural resources through the use of fossil fuels and construction 

materials. Project construction would involve only minor, incremental use of nonrenewable 

resources, and would affect facilities located entirely on lands already committed to water supply 

purposes. Furthermore, because the SFPUC would implement the mitigation measures identified 

in this EIR in concert with other ongoing stewardship and watershed protection activities, 

implementation of the project would not result in significant irreversible environmental changes. 



Francisco Public Utilities Commission Water System Improvement Program. Final EIR (Case 

No. 2005.0159E, State Clearinghouse No. 200509206). San Francisco Planning Commission. 

Motion No. 17734, October 30. 




CHAPTER 7 

 

7.1 Introduction 

This chapter describes alternatives to the proposed Peninsula Pipelines Seismic Upgrade (PPSU) 

project. Section 7.2 presents the objectives of the project and a summary of its significant 

environmental impacts, along with an analysis of the two alternatives evaluated, including the 

No Project Alternative. A comparison of the two alternatives to the proposed project is provided 

and the environmentally superior alternative is identified in Section 7.3.2, with the process used 

to identify and screen the alternatives described in Section 7.4. Alternatives considered but 

rejected from further consideration are described in Section 7.5. 

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15126.6(a), state that an 

Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must describe and evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives 

to the proposed project that would feasibly attain most of the project’s basic objectives and would 

avoid or substantially lessen any significant adverse environmental effects of the project. An EIR 

need not consider every conceivable alternative to the proposed project. Rather, it must consider 

a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision-making 

and public participation. The EIR must evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives and 

include sufficient information about each alternative to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, 

and comparison with the proposed project. 

Specifically, the CEQA Guidelines set forth the following criteria for selecting alternatives: 

 

 

 

Identifying Alternatives. The discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the 

project or its location that are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant 

effects of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment 

of the project objectives or would be more costly (Section 15126.6[b]). 

Range of Alternatives. The range of potential alternatives shall include those that could 

feasibly accomplish most of the basic objectives of the project and could avoid or 

substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects (Section 15126.6[c]). The specific 

alternative of “No Project” (referred to as the No Project Alternative) shall also be evaluated 

along with its impacts (Section 15126.6[e][1]). 

Evaluation of Alternatives. The alternatives should be limited to ones that would avoid or 

substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. Of those alternatives, the EIR need 

examine in detail only the ones that the lead agency determines could feasibly attain most of the 

basic objectives of the project. The range of feasible alternatives shall be selected and discussed so 



7. Alternatives 

as to foster meaningful public participation and informed decision-making (Section 15126.6[f]). 

An EIR is not required to consider alternatives that are infeasible (Section 15126.6[a]). 

7.2 Alternatives Analysis 

This section describes the project-specific alternatives that were selected and analyzed according 

to CEQA Guidelines Section 51526.6(a). These alternatives, including the No Project Alternative, 

represent a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project that would feasibly attain 

most of the project’s basic objectives and would avoid or substantially lessen significant adverse 

environmental effects of the project. The selected alternatives were based on engineering options 

previously considered by the SFPUC as described in Section 7.4, as well as an assessment of ways 

to reduce significant impacts of the proposed project. Section 7.5 describes alternatives 

considered but rejected from further analysis. 

The two alternatives selected for detailed analysis in this EIR include the No Project Alternative 

and one alternative related to construction methods. These alternatives are: 

 

 

Alternative 1: No Project Alternative 

Alternative 2: Sliplining of Pipeline Segments at Selected Project Sites. These sites are in 

South San Francisco (San Andreas Pipeline 2 [SAPL2]), San Bruno South (San Andreas 

Pipeline 2 [SAPL2] and San Andreas Pipeline 3 [SAPL3]), and Millbrae (Sunset Supply 

Branch Pipeline [SSBPL]). At the two remaining PPSU sites, the Colma and San Bruno North 

sites, the PPSU project as proposed would be implemented under this alternative. 

Table 7-1 provides a brief description of these alternatives, describes how each alternative differs 

from the proposed project, and lists the impact areas the alternative is intended to address. 

Table 7-1 

Selected Alternatives for CEQA Analysis 

Alternative Differs from Proposed Project Impact Areas Addressed 

1 No Project Alternative. No 

pipeline repair/replacement 

unless pipeline failure 

(assumed). 

2 Sliplining of Pipeline 

Segments at Selected Project 

Sites. Relies on pushing 

smaller new pipe inside 

existing pipe to reduce noise 

along length of construction 

area. 

No construction unless pipeline 

failure (assumed), does not meet 

any of the project objectives. 

Leaves pipelines susceptible to 

failure. 

Eliminates open-trench 

construction at South San 

Francisco, San Bruno South, and 

Millbrae sites. 

All impact areas. 

All impact areas, with specific 

focus on significant and 

unavoidable noise impacts 

during construction. 

Sources: Manders, 2012b; G&E/GTC Joint Venture, 2011. 




7.2.1 Project Objectives 

As described in Section 3.3 of Chapter 3, Project Description, the goal of the proposed project is to 

improve the seismic reliability of transmission pipelines between the Harry Tracy Water 

Treatment Plant and the Capuchino, Baden, and San Pedro Valve Lots in the event of a major 

earthquake on the San Andreas Fault. Objectives would be achieved by completing proposed 

improvements designed to prevent the failure of SAPL2, SAPL3, and SSBPL to maintain 

reliability during a major seismic event. 


 

 

 




from the HTWTP to downstream facilities after a major San Andreas earthquake, and to 

achieve WSIP seismic reliability level of service goals. 






7.2.2 Overview of the Project’s Potentially Significant and 

Significant Impacts 

As described in Chapter 5, Environmental Setting and Impacts, of this EIR, implementation of the 

project would result in potentially significant or significant impacts on the following resources 

before mitigation: 

Land Use and Land Use Planning: Indirect impacts from noise could result in substantial 

disruption of land uses at residences near the South San Francisco, San Bruno North, San Bruno 

South, and Millbrae sites. Project construction could have a substantial temporary direct or 

indirect impact on the existing character of the vicinity, and could substantially impact or disrupt 

existing land uses or land use activities. Project impacts would be reduced to less than significant 


Aesthetics: Potential light and glare impacts could occur at the San Bruno North site from 

nighttime lighting for construction activities. Project impacts would be reduced to less than 


Cultural and Paleontological Resources: Potential impacts on historical or unique archaeological 

resources could occur during construction at the Colma, South San Francisco, San Bruno South, 

and Millbrae sites. Implementation of the project, including excavation, trenching, grading, and 

the movement of heavy construction vehicles and equipment, could expose and disturb or 

damage previously unrecorded archaeological resources at these sites, which could result in a 




substantial adverse change in the potential significance of a historical or unique archaeological 

resource. Project construction could have a substantial adverse effect on paleontological resources 

based on the potential for fossils to be present at all projects sites except San Bruno North site. 

Potential impacts regarding the disturbance of human remains at the Colma, South San 

Francisco, San Bruno South and Millbrae sites could occur. Project impacts would be reduced to 


Transportation and Circulation: The proposed project would have the potential to decrease the 

safety of public roadways for vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians. Temporary hazards for cyclists 

and pedestrians, and impaired emergency access during construction, have the potential to occur. 

In addition, lane closures would result in a decrease in level of service at the San Bruno Avenue 

West intersection, a potentially significant impact. Project impacts would be reduced to less than 


Noise: Potential impacts as a result of construction activities would include a substantial 

temporary increase in ambient noise levels that could interfere with nearby land uses at the 

Colma, South San Francisco, San Bruno North, San Bruno South, and Millbrae sites. Construction 

activities could potentially result in exposure of sensitive land uses to noise levels in excess of 

standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance at the Colma, San Bruno North, 

and Millbrae sites, as well as the common staging area. Potential vibration impacts could occur at 

sensitive land uses at the South San Francisco, San Bruno North, San Bruno South, and Millbrae 

sites. Even with implementation of mitigation measures, project impacts would remain 

significant and unavoidable at sensitive receptors at the South San Francisco, San Bruno North, 

San Bruno South, and Millbrae sites. 

Recreation: Potential impacts from construction could temporarily degrade existing recreational 

facilities at the Millbrae site. The driving range and, potentially one hole at the Green Hills 

Country Club golf course could temporarily be closed during construction activities. Project 

impacts would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation. 

Utilities and Service Systems: Construction activity could potentially disrupt utility operations 

or cause accidental damage to existing utilities at the proposed project sites. The proposed project 

could also potentially cause adverse impacts related to compliance with federal, state, and local 

statutes in regards to solid waste. Project impacts would be reduced to less than significant with 

mitigation. 

Biological Resources: The proposed project has the potential to adversely affect special-status 

wildlife species during construction activities at all project sites. Potential impacts to riparian 

habitat may occur at the South San Francisco site. Construction activities could have a substantial 

adverse impact on jurisdictional waters at the Colma, South San Francisco, San Bruno South, and 

Millbrae sites. At the Colma site, the proposed project would remove and replace a concrete creek 

culvert to allow for pipeline replacement, resulting in impacts to jurisdictional waters. Due to the 

fixed location of the culvert and existing pipeline, it was determined to be the only feasible 

construction option at the site. Construction activities at the South San Francisco and San Bruno 

North sites have the potential to conflict with local tree protection ordinances. Project impacts 

would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation. 




Geology and Soils: The project has the potential to result in substantial soil erosion or loss of 

topsoil at project sites. The removal of the topsoil during site preparation and excavation 

activities could result in the permanent loss of these soils. Project impacts would be reduced to 


Hydrology and Water Quality: Project construction could substantially violate water quality 

standards or waste discharge requirements, or degrade water quality, as a result of erosion and 

sedimentation or an accidental release of hazardous chemicals. The project would include 

construction activities that involve soil disturbance that could degrade the water quality of 

nearby creeks, particularly if these activities occur during the rainy season. Project impacts would 

be reduced to less than significant with mitigation. 

Hazards and Hazardous Materials: There is a low potential to encounter hazardous materials in 

the soil and groundwater during construction at the five project sites. However, it cannot be 

determined with certainty that excavated materials would not contain potentially hazardous soil 

and/or groundwater wastes. Project construction activities could create a significant hazard to the 

public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions 

involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Project impacts would be 

reduced to less than significant with mitigation. 

7.2.3 Alternative 1 – No Project Alternative 

7.2.3.1 Description of Alternative 1 

CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(3)(B) describes the “No Project” Alternative as the 

circumstance under which the proposed project does not proceed. Consideration of the No 

Project Alternative is required under Section 15126(f) of the CEQA Guidelines. The purpose of 

describing and analyzing a No Project Alternative is to allow decision-makers to compare the 

impacts of approving the proposed project with the impacts of not approving the proposed 

project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[e][1]). 

The No Project Alternative includes those activities that would reasonably be expected to occur in 

the foreseeable future if the proposed project were not approved. These activities include the 

following: 

 

 

Continued operation and maintenance of SAPL2, SAPL3, and SSBPL as they are currently 

operated and maintained; and 

Emergency repairs to SAPL2, SAPL3, and SSBPL in the event of a pipeline failure resulting 

from a major earthquake or other unforeseeable event. 

In the absence of a major earthquake along the San Andreas Fault, future operations and 

maintenance under the No Project Alternative would be the same as under existing conditions. 

Normal maintenance activities include yearly visual inspections and discharge of water from the 

manholes as required by other SFPUC projects or inspections. Additionally, physical inspection 

of the pipelines by entering the manholes would occur approximately every 10 to 15 years. 




In the event of pipeline failure resulting from a seismic event or other cause, SFPUC would use 

existing valves in the project vicinity to shut off flow of water to failed pipelines. Pipeline 

shutdown would disrupt service to customers for the duration of the emergency pipeline repairs. 

Depending on the severity of the rupture, the construction period for emergency repairs may be 

shorter or longer than that for the proposed project. Emergency pipeline repairs would require 

approximately 2 weeks for construction of temporary piping, and an additional 3 to 5 months for 

construction activities associated with permanent repairs to the existing pipelines (Manders, 

2012b). Emergency repairs could require 24-hour construction to restore water service, 

necessitating nighttime and weekend construction. 

The Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities has estimated that during the 30-year 

time period between 2003 and 2032, there is a 21 percent probability of a large earthquake 

(magnitude 7.0 or higher) occurring on the San Francisco Peninsula segment of the San Andreas 

Fault earthquake (G&E/GTC Joint Venture, 2011). Based on geotechnical studies performed for 

the PPSU project, if a magnitude 7.0 earthquake were to occur on the San Andreas Fault, SAPL2 

may experience up to 4 inches of differential settlement at the Colma and South San Francisco 

sites; at the San Bruno South site, SAPL2 and SAPL3 may experience up to 24 inches of 

displacement; and at the Millbrae site, SSBPL may experience up to 12 inches of displacement 

(GTC, 2010 and GTC, 2011). In their current condition, the Peninsula Pipelines would not be able 

to withstand these estimated values of displacement and settlement, and either the pipelines 

themselves and/or their connection piping to customer turnouts would most likely break due to 

their inability to withstand the imposed strain (G&E/GTC Joint Venture, 2011). Pipeline failure 

would release water and result in localized flooding, damage to adjacent infrastructure and 

residences, public safety hazards, and a disruption in water delivery services to downstream 

SFPUC customers. Because of the likelihood of occurrence, such a seismic event is assumed to 

occur in this analysis. 

If all pipelines at the San Bruno South and Millbrae sites (SAPL2, SAPL3, and SSBPL) failed, 

supply from HTWTP would be lost (approximately 160 million gallons per day [mgd]). If a break 

were only to occur on SSBPL at the Millbrae site there would be a loss in supply of 80 mgd to the 

customers in Hillsborough, Cal Water Mid-Peninsula District, Burlingame, Millbrae, San 

Francisco International Airport, Foster City, San Bruno, Brisbane, Daly City, and South San 

Francisco. If a break were to occur only on SAPL2 and SAPL3 at the San Bruno South site, there 

would be a loss of supply of 13 to 19 mgd to the North Coast Water Department, Daly City, South 

San Francisco, and City of San Bruno customers. Similarly, a break at the Colma or South San 

Francisco sites would result in a loss in supply to downstream customers of each site. 

Additionally, the supply redundancy 1 feeding San Francisco, which represents approximately 

73 mgd, would be lost; and San Francisco would only be serviced through the low pressure zone 

pipelines (Sunset Supply Pipeline and Crystal Springs Pipelines 1 and 2). 

There are no feasibility issues or constraints associated with this alternative, other than the 

increasing risks associated with potential pipeline failure. However, the No Project Alternative 

would not achieve any of the project objectives. 

1 

Supply redundancy is intended to ensure water delivery in the event that one delivery method fails. For the SFPUC 

water transmission system, supply redundancy is achieved through several pipelines on the San Francisco Peninsula. 




7.2.3.2 Impact Analysis for Alternative 1 


Under the No Project Alternative, land use impacts could be greater than under the proposed 

project as the result of potential pipeline failure during a seismic event. In the absence of a 

pipeline failure, ongoing operations and maintenance activities could include tree removal, 

consistent with the SFPUC ROW Integrated Vegetation Management Policy (SFPUC, 2007); this 

could result in temporary noise and traffic impacts on land uses, similar to those described for 

tree removal under the proposed project. In the event of a pipeline failure, which could occur 

during a seismic event as described above, localized flooding could occur and water service 

could be disrupted, resulting in increased disruptions to existing land uses. Emergency repairs to 

portions of the pipelines would be necessary, and could entail tree removal and construction 

activities similar to those described for the proposed project. However, given the emergency 

nature of these repairs, which could require intensive 24-hour construction periods, and given 

the potential direct impacts from flooding and indirect impacts from disruption of water service, 

impacts to land uses from construction activities could be greater than those associated with the 

proposed project (Impact LU-1: greater). Land use impacts could be significant and unavoidable, 

and unlike the proposed project, mitigation may not be feasible or available to reduce impacts 

because of the uncontrolled nature of impacts. However, similar to the proposed project, these 

short-term impacts would not be anticipated to result in permanent impacts on the existing 

character of the vicinity or long-term disruptions to existing land uses (Impact LU-2: similar). 

Overall, the No Project Alternative would have greater impacts, which could be significant and 

unavoidable, because it could result in impacts for which mitigation would not be available, such 

as flooding, interruptions to water service, and emergency construction activities, and which 

would result in greater short-term disruptions to existing land uses and land use activities. 

Aesthetics 

Under the No Project Alternative, impacts on aesthetics could be greater than the proposed 

project in the event of pipeline failure during a seismic event. In the absence of a pipeline failure, 

ongoing operations and maintenance activities could result in the removal of trees along the 

pipelines at the project sites (primarily South San Francisco and Millbrae sites), which could 

result in minor changes in the views as seen from public vantage points in the area. Similar to the 

proposed project, these changes would not substantially degrade the visual character of the site 

or its surroundings, and the impact would be less than significant (Impact AE-1: similar 

and AE-3: similar). 

In the event of pipeline failure, repairs to the pipeline could occur on an accelerated schedule in 

order to restore water supply to customers; and additional nighttime work (beyond that 

proposed for the PPSU project at San Bruno North) may be required, which could result in new 

sources of light and glare during construction, a potentially significant impact (Impact AE-2: 

greater). Similar to the proposed project, potential light and glare impacts could be reduced by 

measures that require that lighting be shielded and directed specifically onto work areas to 

minimize light spillover. However, due to the emergency nature of such repairs, it may be 

unlikely that such controls could be initially implemented. 




Overall, impacts on visual resources under the No Project Alternative could be greater than the 

proposed project, because the additional nighttime lighting for emergency construction could 

create temporary new sources of light and glare for adjacent to residences. However, these 

impacts could likely be reduced to less than significant with mitigation. 

Population and Housing 

The No Project Alternative would not have impacts to population and housing, similar to the 

proposed project. It would not result in an influx of construction workers, remove or create 

housing units, or directly remove existing constraints to growth in the study area. In the event of 

pipeline failure and the need for emergency repairs, this work would be performed by the 

existing labor force in the study region, and would not attract new residents to the area. 

Therefore, this alternative would have no impacts on population or housing, similar to the 



Under the No Project Alternative, impacts on cultural resources could be greater than the 

proposed project. In the absence of pipeline failure, ongoing operations and maintenance 

activities—including tree removal—would not cause a substantial adverse change in the 

significance of historical or unique archaeological resources, because the soils above the existing 

pipelines were previously disturbed during pipeline installation. However, if a seismic event 

were to result in pipeline failure, the uncontrolled release of water could result in extensive 

disturbance to archaeological and/or paleontological resources, and to human remains. Such 

disturbance could result in greater impacts than those identified for the proposed project, 

because mitigation may not be feasible given the uncontrolled nature of impacts 

(Impact CP-2, CP-3, and CP-4: greater). These impacts could be significant and unavoidable. 

Emergency construction activities would require excavation and shoring along the area of the 

pipeline break, which could also cause adverse impacts to historical or unique archaeological 

resources at the Colma, South San Francisco, San Bruno South, and Millbrae sites, similar to the 

proposed project. Temporary pipeline repair activities at the Millbrae site would likely result in 

less-than-significant impacts to the Green Hills Country Club, identified as a historical resource 

for CEQA, similar to the proposed project (Impact CP-1: similar). 

Overall, impacts on cultural resources under the No Project Alternative could be greater than the 

proposed project, because of the potential for disturbance to cultural resources during both 

pipeline rupture and repair. Impacts would likely be significant and unavoidable because of the 

potential irretrievable loss of cultural resources from release of water during pipeline rupture 

and the resulting erosion of soils, and because implementation of mitigation may not be feasible 

during emergency repairs. 


Under the No Project Alternative, impacts on transportation and circulation would be similar to 

impacts under the proposed project. In the absence of pipeline failure, continued operation and 

maintenance of the pipelines and SFPUC ROW would generate a limited number of vehicle trips, 

which would not substantially conflict with applicable congestion management programs, 

similar to the proposed project (Impact TR-4: similar). If tree removal were to occur, the 




associated construction vehicle trips would not substantially change typical operation and 

maintenance activities. 

However, in the event of a pipeline failure, emergency repairs could require construction 

activities and construction vehicle trips greater than those described for the proposed project. The 

duration of construction activity could be shorter (or longer) than for the proposed project, but 

could likely entail 24-hour construction periods, resulting in a greater number of trips per day. 

Additionally, the removal of debris could require an increased number of truck trips. Unlike the 

proposed project, the No Project Alternative could result in significant conflicts with applicable 

transportation plans and inadequate emergency access (Impacts TR-1 and TR-2: greater). Public 

safety on roadways for vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians could be decreased during the 

emergency response and repairs (Impact TR-3: greater). 

In the event of a significant seismic event, the effect of pipeline rupture on emergency response 

and repair would be compounded by other upset conditions such as roadway damage, response 

to first aid, and emergency needs, or fires. These conditions would further hamper emergency 

access in the project area. 

Overall, the No Project Alternative would have greater impacts on transportation and circulation 

compared to the proposed project, because of the emergency response and subsequent 

emergency repairs. Impacts would be significant and unavoidable because implementation of 

mitigation during emergency response may not be feasible. 

Noise 

Under the No Project Alternative, noise and vibration impacts could be greater than impacts 

under the proposed project, depending on the need for emergency repairs. Under nonemergency 

conditions, continued operation and maintenance of the pipelines would occur as described 

above, and could entail the removal of trees in the SFPUC ROW. If tree removal were to occur, 

noise and vibration impacts to sensitive receptors at the South San Francisco and Millbrae sites 

would be similar to the tree removal phase of the proposed project. 

Construction activities for emergency repairs in the event of a pipeline failure could have greater 

noise and vibration impacts than the proposed project. Depending on the site and the severity of 

the rupture, the construction period for emergency repairs may be shorter or longer than that for 

the proposed project; however, emergency repairs would likely require intensive 24-hour 

construction to restore water service, resulting in additional nighttime and weekend construction 

noise and vibration impacts, as well as additional impacts related to conflicts with local 

ordinance time limits (Impact NO-3: greater). Due to the immediate need for emergency repairs, 

construction would likely not initially include the same noise controls specified for the proposed 

project, and could result in greater substantial temporary increases in ambient noise levels that 

could interfere with nearby sensitive receptors (Impacts NO-1 and NO-2: greater), as well as 

increased exposure of persons or structures to excessive groundborne vibration (Impact NO-4: 

greater). These impacts could be significant and unavoidable. 

In addition to the noise impacts associated with the pipeline repairs, under the No Project 

Alterative there would be significant noise associated with emergency response activities and 

construction activities required to repair damaged structures and roadways. 




Overall, the No Project Alternative would have even greater significant and unavoidable noise 

impacts compared to the proposed project, and feasible mitigation likely would not be initially 

available because of the nature of emergency pipeline repairs. 

Air Quality 

Under the No Project Alternative, impacts on air quality would be similar to the proposed 

project, based on the likelihood of pipeline failure. In the absence of a pipeline failure, this 

alternative would result in less criteria air pollutants than the proposed project. Limited 

emissions could result from tree removal activities that may occur during ongoing operations 

and maintenance of the pipeline. 

In the event that emergency repairs are required due to pipeline failure, initial temporary repairs 

would be made, followed by more permanent repairs to the pipeline. Even if the emergency 

repairs occur over a shorter construction period compared to the construction of the proposed 

project, construction activities, which could extend up to 24 hours per day, could result in a 

greater amount of emissions per day. Additionally, there would be greater emissions under the 

No Project Alterative due to the increased truck haul trips associated with debris removal; total 

emissions could be greater than emissions under the proposed project. Therefore, the No Project 

Alternative would likely result in greater regional criteria pollutant emissions and localized toxic 

air contaminant emissions compared to the proposed project. Emissions associated with 

construction activities for pipeline repairs in the event of pipeline rupture would may violate air 

quality standards, contribute significantly to an existing air quality violation, or could expose 

sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, or create objectionable odors 

(Impacts AQ-1, AQ-2, and AQ-3: greater). However, similar to the proposed project, the 

temporary air quality impacts associated with emergency repairs would not hinder the 

achievement of long-term air quality goals due to the short-term nature of the emissions 

(Impact AQ-4: similar). 

Overall, the No Project Alternative would have greater impacts on air quality compared to the 

proposed project. Implementation of basic construction measures to reduce fugitive dust and 

emissions, such as limiting vehicle speeds, covering spoils, watering exposed surfaces, reducing 

idling times, and maintaining equipment per manufacturer’s specifications, would likely reduce 

impacts to less than significant with mitigation, although the emergency nature of repairs may 

limit the feasibility of implementing some measures, or delay their implementation. 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

In the absence of a pipeline failure, the No Project Alternative would result in minimal 

greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with tree removal during continued operations and 

maintenance activities. However, in the event of a pipeline failure, emergency repairs to portions 

of the pipeline would be necessary. Although emergency repairs could be conducted over a 

shorter time period than the proposed project, the daily amount of emissions may be increased 

above those anticipated under the proposed project as a result of extended construction hours. 

Overall, the No Project Alternative would have similar impacts on climate change compared to 

the proposed project resulting from construction activities in the event of pipeline failure 

(Impacts GG-1: similar). Impacts would be less than significant, similar to the proposed project. 




Wind and Shadow 

Similar to the proposed project, the No Project Alternative would have no impacts related to 

wind and shadow. The proposed PPSU project would result in upgrades to existing pipelines, 

which are located below ground in the vicinity of the sites and thus would not alter wind 

patterns. Additionally, the No Project Alternative would not propose any features that would 

substantially affect shadow patterns. Therefore, wind and shadow impacts would be no impact, 

similar to the proposed project. 

Recreation 

Under the No Project Alternative, impacts on recreation resources could be greater than under 

the proposed project. In the absence of pipeline failure, ongoing operations and maintenance 

activities would result in fewer impacts on recreation facilities, because there would be no 

construction activities that would directly affect recreation facilities, and no construction-related 

noise or traffic impacts that could affect recreational users. However, temporary noise and traffic 

impacts on recreation facilities could occur with removal of trees in the SFPUC ROW, in 

accordance with the SFPUC ROW Integrated Vegetation Management Policy (SFPUC, 2007), 

similar to those described for the proposed project. In the event of a pipeline failure, emergency 

repairs to portions of the pipelines would be necessary. Localized flooding of recreational 

facilities and loss of water service to facilities could occur, and emergency repairs would be 

required; this could temporarily degrade existing recreation uses, resulting in significant and 

unavoidable impacts if mitigation is not feasible or available due to the uncontrolled nature of 

pipeline failure (Impact RE-1: greater). 

Overall, the No Project Alternative could have greater impacts on recreation resources compared 

to the proposed project, given the potential impacts of pipeline failure and the emergency nature 

of repairs. Impacts would be significant and unavoidable, because feasible mitigation is not 

available. 


The No Project Alternative would have greater impacts to public services in comparison to the 

proposed project, because a pipeline rupture could cause severe damage to public utilities and 

result in substantial interruption of services, including water supply, before emergency repairs 

are constructed. Therefore, impacts related to utilities and service systems could be more severe 

than impacts under the proposed project (Impact UT-1 and UT-2: greater). Pipeline rupture 

would result in a substantial adverse effect to water supply availability because it could prevent 

the delivery of water to cities on the Peninsula, resulting in greater impacts than the proposed 

project (Impact UT-3: greater). With the loss of water supply, fire-fighting capabilities would be 

severely hampered, adding to these already significant impacts. 

Depending on the nature of emergency repairs in the event of pipeline rupture, the No Project 

Alternative could result in a larger amount of construction-related waste than the proposed 

project. Although the No Project Alternative would not be anticipated to result in significant 

impacts on landfill capacity because of the limited amount of waste that would be generated 

during repair of the pipeline, similar to the proposed project (Impact UT-4: similar), it is 

unknown if this alternative could achieve compliance with federal, State, and local statutes and 




regulations pertaining to solid waste. Fewer materials may be recycled due to contamination or 

because the rapid speed of repairs may prevent separation of materials for recycling. Due to the 

emergency nature of repairs, mitigation to help achieve compliance with waste statutes may not 

be feasible, which could result in greater impacts than proposed project (Impact UT-5: greater). 

Overall, the No Project Alternative could have greater impacts to utilities and service systems 

than the proposed project, because it could result in disruption of services, including loss of 

water supply, and uncertain compliance with goals for diversion of waste from landfills. Impacts 

could be significant and unavoidable because mitigation may not be available to implement due 

to the emergency/uncontrolled nature of the impacts. 

Public Services 

The No Project Alternative would have impacts on public services, unlike the proposed project. 

Pipeline failure could require a temporary acute emergency response by fire protection and 

emergency services. Although this demand would likely not require the provision of new or 

physically altered government facilities, impacts would be substantially greater than the 

proposed project. Although the No Project Alternative could have greater impacts on public 

services than the proposed project, such impacts would likely be less than significant because of 

the temporary nature of the increased demand placed on the services. 


Under the No Project Alternative, impacts on biological resources could be greater than the 

proposed project in the event of pipeline failure. However, in the absence of pipeline rupture, 

continued operation and maintenance of the pipelines and SFPUC ROW could entail tree 

removal, resulting in impacts to special-status wildlife species—particularly at the South San 

Francisco and Millbrae sites, where groves of trees are established in the ROW. Impacts would be 

similar to the proposed project. 

A pipeline failure, which could occur during a seismic event as described above, could result in a 

larger area of disturbance than the proposed project, which could affect more special status 

species or their habitat. In this event, emergency repairs to portions of the pipeline would be 

necessary. Repairs could entail tree removal, excavation and shoring, and pipeline replacement, 

which could have substantial impacts on special-status wildlife species. Because of the 

emergency nature of repairs, mitigation measures that could reduce potential impacts to specialstatus 

wildlife may not be feasible, resulting in greater impacts than the proposed project 

(Impacts BI-1 and BI-4: greater). Additionally, pipeline rupture could discharge chloraminated 

water to riparian habitat at the South San Francisco site, as well as to waters of the State or of the 

United States (Colma, South San Francisco, San Bruno South, and Millbrae), and result in impacts 

on riparian habitat, aquatic resources, and jurisdictional waters, beyond impacts identified for the 

proposed project (Impacts BI-2 and BI-3: greater). 

Overall, the No Project Alternative could have greater impacts on biological resources compared 

to the proposed project, due to potential emergency/uncontrolled discharges of chloraminated 

water to riparian habitats and storm drains that eventually flow to San Francisco Bay; and 

because implementation of mitigation to reduce impacts to special-status wildlife species and 




comply with local tree protection ordinances may not be feasible, given the emergency nature of 

repairs. Impacts could be significant and unavoidable. 


Under the No Project Alternative, impacts on geology and soils could be greater than the 

proposed project. The No Project Alternative would not result in the construction of pipeline 

upgrades; in the case of a seismic event, the pipelines could fail due to surface fault rupture or 

soil liquefaction, exposing people and structures to substantial adverse effects (Impact GE-2 

and GE-3: greater). Water loss from ruptured pipelines could result in scouring of topsoil and 

soil erosion (Impact GE-1: greater). These impacts could be significant and unavoidable, and 

unlike the proposed project, mitigation may not be feasible or available to reduce impacts 

because of the emergency nature of impacts. Similar to the proposed project, the No Project 

Alternative would not be located in areas with slopes that are likely to become unstable, nor is 

the project located in areas with expansive soils (Impact GE-4 and GE-5: similar). 

Overall, impacts related to geology and soils could be greater than impacts from the proposed 

project, and impacts would be significant and unavoidable because mitigation may not be 

available to implement due to the emergency/uncontrolled nature of pipeline rupture. 


Under the No Project Alternative, impacts on hydrology and water quality could be greater than 

under the proposed project. In the absence of pipeline failure, ongoing operations and 

maintenance would not affect hydrology and water quality. However, a large-magnitude 

earthquake resulting in the rupture of the pipelines could release up to 6.7 million gallons of 

chloraminated water during 30 to 60 minutes, until SFPUC operators are able to close the shutoff 

valves to stop the flow, assuming the earthquake causes the rupture of all pipelines at the San 

Bruno South and Millbrae sites (SAPL2, SAPL3, and SSBPL). This volume of water would cause 

localized flooding and erosion. Additionally, due to the emergency natures of these discharges, 

water would likely not be dechlorinated, unlike under the proposed project (which would 

discharge 5.4 million gallons). Therefore, this alternative could substantially violate water quality 

standards and degrade water quality as a result of erosion (Impact HY-1: greater), resulting in 

significant and unavoidable impacts. 

In addition, the repaired pipeline(s) would require disinfection (prior to being brought back 

online), and the associated discharge of this treated water. Similar to the proposed project, 

dewatering of excavated areas during project construction would not substantially deplete 

groundwater supplies (Impact HY-2: similar) nor would it degrade water quality (Impact HY-3: 

similar). Discharges of dewatering effluent from excavated areas and of treated water from 

repaired pipelines would not substantially degrade water quality, because it would comply with 

the same regulations as the proposed project (Impact HY-4: similar). 

Overall, the No Project Alternative could have greater impacts on water resources compared to 

the proposed project, because it could result in emergency discharges of chloraminated water, 

which, along with associated erosion, could result in degradation of water quality. Impacts 

would be significant and unavoidable, because feasible mitigation is not available. 





In the absence of a seismic event and pipeline rupture, the No Project Alternative would have 

fewer impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials than the proposed project, because 

ongoing operations and maintenance activities—including tree removal, if required—would use 

minimal amounts of hazardous substances, which would be primarily associated with vehicles 

and equipment. 

However, if a pipeline rupture were to occur during a seismic event, construction activities to 

repair the pipeline could create a significant hazard through the routine transport, use, and 

disposal of hazardous materials, or through the reasonably foreseeable upset of hazardous 

materials. Because these activities would be similar to construction activities for the proposed 

project, impacts would be similar (Impacts HZ-1 and HZ-2: similar). Mitigation measures similar 

to those identified for the proposed project would reduce these impacts to less than significant 

with mitigation. Because the use of hazardous materials during construction would be in 

compliance with applicable regulations, and because hazardous materials are likely not to be 

present in the soils or groundwater in the project area, construction activities would not result in 

the release of hazardous materials within 0.25 mile of a school (Impact HZ-3: similar). This 

alternative would also be located in the vicinity of the San Francisco International Airport and, 

similar to the proposed project, construction activities would not interfere with airport operations 

(Impact HZ-4: similar). 

As described above, this alternative would likely impair implementation of emergency response 

or evacuation plans (Impact HZ-5: greater) due to the upset conditions such as roadway damage, 

response to first aid and emergency needs, or fires during a seismic event. Emergency access 

could be further hampered by construction activities for the pipeline repair, resulting in a 

potentially significant impact. Overall, hazards and hazardous materials impacts under the No 

Project Alternative would have a greater impact compared to the proposed project, because of 

the possibility for emergency response and subsequent emergency repairs to impair 

implementation of or physically interfere with an emergency response plan or emergency 

evacuation plan. Impacts would be significant and unavoidable because implementation of 

mitigation during emergency response may not be feasible. 

Mineral and Energy Resources 

Similar to the proposed project, the No Project Alternative would not result in impacts related to 

mineral or energy resources. The project area is not located on lands with known mineral 

resources, or in an area with a locally important mineral resource recovery site. The use of energy 

associated with operations and maintenance activities and pipeline replacement in the event of a 

pipeline failure would not be in excess of standard construction and operation practices or 

encourage activities that use large amounts of fuel, water, or energy, or resources in a wasteful 

manner. Therefore, impacts to mineral and energy resources would be no impact, similar to the 


Agriculture and Forest Resources 

Similar to the proposed project, the No Project Alternative would have no impacts to agriculture 

and forest resources. The project area is not designated as farmland by the Farmland Mapping 




and Monitoring Program, nor is the area zoned for agricultural uses or subject to a Williamson 

Act contract. The area is not zoned as forest land or timberland, nor are there forestry uses in the 

vicinity. Therefore, impacts to agriculture and forest resources would be no impact, similar to the 


7.2.3.3 Conclusions for Alternative 1 

In the absence of a major earthquake along the San Andreas Fault, the No Project Alternative 

would result in fewer and less severe impacts compared to the proposed project. Potential 

impacts would be associated with operations and maintenance activities along the pipeline. 

Significant impacts to biological resources would remain under normal circumstances due to the 

tree removal at the South San Francisco and Millbrae sites. However, many of the potentially 

significant and unavoidable and significant but mitigable impacts that would occur with the 

proposed project would be avoided, including impacts related to: land use and land use 

planning; cultural resources; transportation and circulation; noise; recreation; utilities and service 

systems; geology and soils; hydrology and water quality; and hazards and hazardous materials. 

However, in the probable event of rupture of SAPL2, SAPL3, and/or SSBPL during a seismic 

event, the No Project Alternative would likely result in greater impacts than the proposed project. 

Flooding could result in greater impacts related to land use disruption, closure or disruption of 

recreational facilities, soil erosion, damage to previously unidentified archaeological and 

paleontological resources, impacts to biological and hydrological resources from discharge of 

chloraminated water, and damage to utilities (including service disruption). In addition, 

emergency pipeline repair activities could result in greater impacts than the proposed project 

because some mitigation that could reduce construction-related impacts may not be feasible 

under this alternative due to the emergency nature of repairs. Although the construction period 

could be shorter under the No Project Alternative, repairs would likely require additional 

24-hour and weekend construction, resulting in greater noise-related impacts on nearby 

residences than under the proposed project and impacts from nighttime lighting for emergency 

construction. Removal of debris associated with pipeline failure and flooding would result in 

greater truck trips. Loss of water supply would adversely affect the provision of services on a 

normal service basis and for fire-fighting as a result of a seismic event. Acute demand for 

emergency response services would be required due to pipeline failure and flooding after a 

seismic event. 

The No Project Alternative would not meet any of the project objectives. Overall, the No Project 

Alternative would likely result in greater environmental impacts than would the proposed 

project, due to the high probability of pipeline failure caused by an earthquake on the San 

Andreas Fault. 

7.2.4 Alternative 2 – Sliplining Alternative 

7.2.4.1 Description of Alternative 2 

The Sliplining Alternative is a design alternative that entails installation of new smaller-diameter 

pipe within the existing pipe to improve the seismic reliability of the pipeline, as described in the 

following text. The Sliplining Alternative would be implemented at selected locations where the 




pipe is susceptible to failure from seismic events at project sites where the proximity of the 

proposed project construction to nearby sensitive receptors would result in significant 

construction-related impacts. As shown in Figures 7-1 through 7-3, these locations are: South San 

Francisco (SAPL2), San Bruno South (SAPL2 and SAPL3), and Millbrae (SSBPL). Under this 

alternative, the PPSU project as proposed would be implemented at the Colma and San Bruno 

North sites. 

Sliplining was not considered for the Colma site because potential PPSU project impacts would 

be less than significant or less than significant with mitigation, and sliplining would not reduce 

any impacts associated with the PPSU project. It was not considered for the San Bruno North site 

because sliplining would not provide an adequate engineering solution to stabilize the pipeline 

as it extends through the tunnel at that location. Furthermore, unlike other project sites where 

open-trench construction would be used, and where a sliplining alternative would reduce the 

area of excavation and thus limit the exposure of sensitive receptors to noise, the project design at 

the San Bruno North site already entails limited construction areas because of the use of access 

portals, which have smaller dimensions than sliplining pits. Sliplining would actually require 

additional construction work compared to the proposed project to connect the new pipeline 

segment to the existing pipe. Therefore, sliplining would not be expected to reduce constructionrelated 

impacts at the San Bruno North site. 2 

Sliplining would meet some of the project objectives, but would provide a lower seismic 

reliability than the proposed PPSU project because the welds for the liner pipe are considered to 

have a lower strength compared to new construction, where both sides of the pipe are accessible 

for welding (G&E/GTC Joint Venture, 2011). If sliplining were used, the existing pipe joints — 

riveted joints along SAPL2 and pre-stressed concrete cylinder pipe joints along SAPL3 — would 

concentrate strain due to seismic offset at points of connection to existing pipe. 

Under this method, a smaller-diameter new pipe is pushed or pulled through the existing pipe. 

Compared to the proposed project, which would entail excavation of the existing pipeline along 

the entire section to be replaced at these sites, sliplining would require less ground disturbance 

since pits would be excavated where the pipeline alignment changes. These pits are typically 

located at the high and/or low points (vertical alignment change) and at horizontal deflection 

points (horizontal alignment change) of the pipeline alignment. To push the new pipeline 

through the old pipeline, hydraulic jacking equipment would be placed in the pit and braced 

against the wall opposite where the pipe would be pushed. To pull pipe, a winch would be set up 

in one pit and the new pipe would be placed at the opposite end of the pipe to be sliplined. A 

cable would be threaded through the existing pipe and attached to the new pipe. The new pipe 

would then be pulled through the existing pipeline. Once the new pipe is installed, the space 

between the new and old pipes would be filled with cement slurry. 

Under the Sliplining Alternative, a 48-inch-diameter pipeline would be sliplined inside the 

existing segments of SAPL2, SAPL3 and SSBPL at the South San Francisco, San Bruno South, and 

2 

The only other alternative to the proposed project at the San Bruno North site would involve pumping concrete into the 

tunnel to completely encase the existing pipe. However, this does not allow for future maintenance activities that may 

be required, and therefore was not considered further in this analysis. 



750 ft 



ARROYO 

DR 



SITE 

WEST ORAN GE AVE 

ARROYO DR 

ALTA LOMA DR 




OVERVIEW 


CAMARITAS AVE 

California 

Golf Club of 



Culvert 

0.05 

acre 



vsa/ed U:\GIS\SFPUC_Peninsula_Pipeline\Projects\EIR\ADEIR2\Fig7_1_project_description_SSF_slipline_alt.mxd 10/11/2012 12:02:02 PM 





Boring Pit 

Slipline Pit 

Access Route 


$ 

95 ft 





Right-of-Way 

0 75 150 

Feet 

KNOLL CIR 

FAIRWAY DR 

0.32 

acre 


Westborough 


Living 

Pacific 

Supermarket 



0 100 200 

Feet 

SLIPLINING ALTERNATIVE 





FIGURE 7-1

Shelter Creek 

Condominiums 


112 ft 

Shelter Creek 

Condominiums 

WHITMAN WAY 



§¨¦ 280 


0.09 

acre 

1080 ft 

ROSEWOOD DR 

GLENBROOK LN 

COURTLAND DR 

vsa/ed U:\GIS\SFPUC_Peninsula_Pipeline\Projects\EIR\ADEIR2\Fig7_2_project_description_SanBrunoSouth_slipline_alt.mxd 10/4/2012 6:16:57 PM 







Slipline Pit 

Access Route 

0.98 

acre 




$ 

0 85 170 

Feet 


Right-of-Way 



60 ft 



0.18 

acre 

Church 

Parking Lot 






FIGURE 7-2

CAPUCHINO DR 


BERTOCCHI LN 

1.1 

acre 

HACIENDA WAY 


RIDGEWOOD DR 

50 ft 

150 ft 

BANBURY LN 

140 ft 

610 ft 

0.62 

acre 

vsa/ed U:\GIS\SFPUC_Peninsula_Pipeline\Projects\EIR\SC_DEIR\Fig7_3_project_description_Millbrae_slipline_alt.mxd 12/10/2012 12:44:08 PM 

CLAREMONT CT 




Slipline Pit 

Access Route 


Access Route 

Source: NAIP Imagery Summer 2010; SFPUC 2011 





Right-of-Way 

$ 

0 85 170 

Feet 

280 ft 

47 ft 

0.31 

acre 

Green Hills 

Country 

Club 


MILLBRAE SITE 




FIGURE 7-3


Millbrae sites. The excavation pit dimensions would be approximately 40 feet long by 12 feet 

wide. As shown on Figures 7-1 through 7-3, there would be approximately four pits along SAPL2 

at South San Francisco, seven pits each along SAPL2 and SAPL3 at San Bruno South, and eight 

pits along SSBPL at Millbrae. The maximum depth of the pits would be 30 feet for SAPL2 at 

South San Francisco, 30 feet for SAPL2 at San Bruno South, 14 feet for SAPL3 at San Bruno South, 

and 18 feet for SSBPL at Millbrae. The amount of soils that would be excavated at these sites 

would be approximately 15 percent of the amount of soils that would be excavated under the 

proposed project at the South San Francisco and San Bruno South sites, and 45 percent of the 

estimated soils that would be excavated under the proposed project at the Millbrae site (55 to 

85 percent less). In addition to construction equipment that would be used for the PPSU project, 

this alternative would require a hydraulic jacking machine. 

The Sliplining Alternative would occur during planned operational shutdowns, similar to the 

proposed project. Depending on the sliplining material and orientation of the pipeline, sliplining 

would occur at a rate of approximately 50 feet per day. The construction duration at the project 

sites would be the same or slightly less than the proposed PPSU project construction duration, as 

follows: At South San Francisco and San Bruno South, construction would be 0.5 month less than 

the proposed project (2.5 months and 8.5 months, respectively) and construction would be the 

same duration at Millbrae as the proposed project (4.5 months) (Manders, 2012a). 

The duration of work at each pit would include about 1 week for excavation and shoring of the 

pit, and would vary based on the distance to be sliplined. Durations for sliplining would range 

from 5 to 10 days at South San Francisco, 3 to 11 days at San Bruno South, and 4 to 7 days at 

Millbrae. In summary, total work durations at the pits would range from 1.5 to 3.5 weeks. 

Because the Sliplining Alternative would require substantially less off-haul of soils and 

construction debris due to the smaller amount of excavation required and because the existing 

pipelines would not be removed, truck trips would range from approximately 10 percent of the 

proposed project’s estimated truck trips at the South San Francisco and San Bruno South sites to 

30 percent of estimated truck trips at the Millbrae site. 

Other features of this alternative would be similar to the proposed project, including water 

discharges and blow-off locations, access routes, and staging areas. Additionally, future 

operations and maintenance activities would be similar to those for the proposed project. 

7.2.4.2 Impact Analysis for Alternative 2 

The Sliplining Alternative would occur at the South San Francisco, San Bruno South, and 

Millbrae sites. Under this alternative, the PPSU project as proposed would be implemented at the 

Colma and San Bruno North sites, and impacts would remain as described for the proposed 

project at those sites. 


Under the Sliplining Alternative, land use impacts would be less than under the proposed project. 

The project “footprint,” including construction zones, tree removal areas, and staging areas, would 

be similar to the proposed project, but the amount of excavation at the South San Francisco, San 

Bruno South, and Millbrae sites would be substantially less than required for the proposed project. 




Because of the slightly reduced construction schedule at South San Francisco and San Bruno South 

sites and the substantial reduction in truck trips associated with construction activities, disruptions 

to existing land uses would be reduced (Impact LU-1: reduced). However, even with these 

reductions, potential construction impacts on nearby sensitive land uses would be significant. 

Mitigation measures identified for the proposed project for similar impacts would also apply to this 

alternative and would reduce impacts to less than significant with mitigation. Operations and 

maintenance activities would not result in significant permanent impacts to land uses, similar to the 

proposed project (Impact LU-2: similar). 

Overall, the Sliplining Alternative would have reduced land use impacts that, with mitigation, 

would be less than significant, similar to the proposed project.. 

Aesthetics 

Under the Sliplining Alternative, impacts on aesthetics would generally be similar to the 

proposed project. During construction, temporary impacts from construction staging and 

activities could occur, but would not result in substantial adverse effects on scenic vistas or 

degrade the visual character of the area, and potential impacts would be less than significant 

(Impact AE-1: similar). Tree removal along the pipeline alignment would result in minor changes 

in the visual character of the area, but due to the combination of the limited viewer exposure 

and/or reduced visual quality of the sites, as well as the surrounding vegetation that would 

remain at the sites, these changes would be less than significant (Impact AE-3: similar). Similar to 

the proposed project, the Sliplining Alternative would not generate light and glare impacts for 

sensitive receptors during construction or operation at the South San Francisco, San Bruno South, 

or Millbrae sites (Impact AE-2: similar). 

Overall, the Sliplining Alternative, with mitigation, would have less-than-significant impacts on 

aesthetics resources, similar to the proposed project. 

Population and Housing 

The Sliplining Alternative would not have impacts to population and housing, similar to the 

proposed project. This alternative would not remove or create housing units or directly remove 

existing constraints to growth in the study area. Labor requirements would be similar to those 

associated with the proposed project, and these requirements could be readily filled by the 

existing resident labor force in the study region. Therefore, the Sliplining Alternative would have 

similar impacts on population or housing resources to the proposed project. 


The Sliplining Alternative would result in fewer impacts to cultural resources compared to the 

proposed project. Because less ground disturbance would be required for this alternative, there would 

be a reduced potential to cause an adverse change in the significance of historical or unique 

archaeological resources at the South San Francisco and San Bruno South sites (Impact CP-2: 

reduced). Similarly, it would have a reduced likelihood to disturb paleontological resources or human 

remains (Impacts CP-3 and CP-4: reduced). Mitigation measures identified for the proposed project 

would still be required for the Sliplining Alternative, and with implementation of these measures, 

potential impacts to cultural resources would be reduced to less-than-significant levels. 




Under the Sliplining Alternative, there would be a less-than-significant impact to historical 

resources from construction activities on the Green Hills Country Club at the Millbrae site, 

similar to the proposed project (Impact CP-1: similar). 

Overall, the Sliplining Alternative would have reduced cultural resource impacts because of the 

reduced amount of excavation that would occur under this alternative. 


The Sliplining Alternative would result in fewer impacts on transportation and circulation than the 

proposed project. Because the Sliplining Alternative would require substantially less excavation of 

soils and less off-haul of spoils and construction debris, the number of truck trips would range from 

approximately 10 percent of the proposed project’s estimated truck trips at the South San Francisco 

and San Bruno South sites, to 30 percent of estimated truck trips at the Millbrae site. Additionally, 

under the Sliplining Alternative, the duration of construction activity at the South San Francisco 

and San Bruno South sites would be slightly less than for the proposed project, resulting in a 

slightly shorter period of construction impacts associated with access and haul routes. 

Similar to the proposed project, conflicts with applicable plans, ordinances, and policies, and 

impacts to emergency access for the Sliplining Alternative, would be less than significant because 

construction activities and the short-term increases in vehicle trips would not substantially 

conflict with applicable plans, or result in inadequate emergency access (Impacts TR-1 and TR-2: 

similar). Potential impacts to safety of public roadways for vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians 

would be reduced because of the reduction in the number of truck trips and slightly shorter 

duration of construction activities, as described above (Impact TR-3: reduced). With 

implementation of mitigation similar to that identified for the proposed project, impacts would 

remain less than significant with mitigation. Operation and maintenance of the pipelines and 

SFPUC ROW under this alternative would be similar to the proposed project, and impacts would 

be less than significant (Impact TR-4: similar). 

Overall, the Sliplining Alternative would have reduced impacts on transportation and circulation 

compared to the proposed project, because it would result in fewer construction vehicles at the 

South San Francisco, San Bruno South, and Millbrae sites and shorter construction durations at 

the South San Francisco and San Bruno South sites. 

Noise 

Under the Sliplining Alternative, construction noise and vibration impacts would be reduced 

compared to the proposed project. 


Compared with the proposed project, the Sliplining Alternative would have similar construction 

activities in terms of noise and vibration, but access route truck trips would be reduced by 

approximately 90 percent at the South San Francisco site. The construction period would be 

slightly shorter, but the noise and vibration levels at sensitive receptors due to construction 

activities would generally remain the same as under the proposed project. Due to the location of 

the northernmost sliplining pit and the truck access routes, the Sliplining Alternative would 

affect approximately the same number of sensitive receptors. Noise levels from haul traffic would 




be reduced compared to the proposed project, because of the reduced number of truck trips 

required for this alternative. Overall, impacts from construction noise would be somewhat 

reduced compared to the proposed project (Impact NO-1: reduced), but would likely remain 

significant and unavoidable with mitigation at the residential receptors on Arroyo Drive, and less 

than significant with mitigation at the other receptors. 

Impacts due to excess groundborne vibration would be less than significant with mitigation, 

similar to the proposed project (Impact NO-4: similar). There would be no nighttime 

construction, and no conflicts with local ordinances, similar to the proposed project 

(Impacts NO-2 and NO-3: similar). 


Compared with the proposed project, the Sliplining Alternative would have similar construction 

noise and vibration levels, but access route traffic would be reduced by approximately 90 percent at 

the San Bruno South site. The duration of construction impacts at each individual sensitive receptor 

would be slightly reduced due to the slightly shorter construction schedule, but the noise and 

vibration levels from construction activities would be similar to those of the proposed project. Due to 

the anticipated location of the sliplining pits, this alternative would affect approximately the same 

number of sensitive receptors in the Shelter Creek Condominiums and Park Plaza Apartments. 

However, a small number of single-family sensitive receptors along Courtland Drive (approximately 

five residences) would experience a great enough reduction in construction noise levels that impacts 

would be reduced from significant and unavoidable with mitigation to less than significant with 

mitigation at the five residences. Noise levels from haul traffic would be reduced compared to the 

proposed project. Overall, impacts from daytime construction noise would be somewhat reduced 

compared to the proposed project (Impact NO-1: reduced), but would likely remain significant and 

unavoidable with mitigation at the multi-family residential receptors (Shelter Creek Condominiums 

and Park Plaza Apartments), as well as at some single-family residential receptors (along Courtland 

Drive). Construction noise impacts would remain less than significant with mitigation at the other 

sensitive receptors. 

Impacts due to nighttime construction (pipeline dewatering) and exposure of persons or 

structures to excess groundborne vibration would be less than significant with mitigation, similar 

to the proposed project (Impacts NO-2 and NO-4: similar). There would be no impacts due to 

conflicts with local ordinance time limits (Impact NO-3: similar). 

Millbrae Site 

Compared with the proposed project, the Sliplining Alternative would have similar noise and 

vibration levels from construction activities, but access route traffic would be reduced by 

approximately 70 percent at the Millbrae site. The construction schedule would be similar to the 

proposed project, but the duration of noise impacts at each individual sensitive receptor may be 

slightly reduced by the use of pit excavation instead of open-trench construction techniques. Due 

to the anticipated location of the pits, the Sliplining Alternative would affect approximately the 

same number of sensitive receptors as the proposed project. However, noise levels from haul 

traffic would be reduced compared to the proposed project. Overall, impacts from construction 

noise would be somewhat reduced compared to the proposed project (Impact NO-1: reduced), 

but would likely remain significant and unavoidable with mitigation at the single-family 




residential receptors along Ridgewood Drive and Hacienda Way, and less than significant or less 

than significant with mitigation at the other receptors. 

Impacts due to nighttime construction (pipeline dewatering) and exposure of persons or 

structures to excess groundborne vibration would be less than significant with mitigation, similar 

to the proposed project (Impacts NO-2 and NO-4: similar). Impacts due to conflicts with local 

ordinance time limits would remain significant and unavoidable due to nighttime dewatering 

activities (Impact NO-3: similar). 

Overall, the Sliplining Alternative would have reduced noise impacts on sensitive receptors, 

although many of the significant impacts that could occur under the proposed project would 

likely also occur under this alternative. 

Air Quality 

Under the Sliplining Alternative, impacts on air quality would be somewhat less than the proposed 

project. This alternative would be constructed over a slightly shorter period than the proposed 

project at the South San Francisco and the San Bruno South sites (0.5 month less than the proposed 

project), although the construction period at the Millbrae site would be the same as the proposed 

project. Additionally, the Sliplining Alternative would result in substantially less excavation of 

soils, and would require approximately 70 to 90 percent fewer truck trips compared to the 

proposed project. As a result, the Sliplining Alternative would have less regional criteria pollutant 

emissions and localized toxic air contaminant emissions than the proposed project 

(Impacts AQ-1, AQ-2, and Impact AQ-3: reduced). However, to reduce impacts from fugitive dust, 

mitigation measures would be required to be implemented, similar to the proposed project. The 

temporary air quality impacts associated with construction of this alternative would not hinder 

the achievement of long-term air quality goals due to the short-term nature of the emissions, 

similar to the proposed project (Impact AQ-4: similar). 

The Sliplining Alternative would have reduced impacts on air quality compared to the proposed 

project, because of the reduced number of truck trips associated with construction at all three 

project sites, the shorter construction period at two of the three sites, and the reduced amount of 

excavation of soils required for this alternative. Overall, air quality impacts would remain less 

than significant with mitigation, similar to the proposed project. 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

Under the Sliplining Alternative, impacts on climate change would be somewhat less than the 

proposed project. The Sliplining Alternative would be conducted over a slightly shorter time 

period at two of the three project sites compared to the proposed project. Additionally, the 

Sliplining Alternative would require substantially fewer truck trips compared to the proposed 

project. As a result, the Sliplining Alternative would emit fewer GHG emissions. GHG emissions 

from the Sliplining Alternative would not have a significant impact on the environment, nor 

would they conflict with applicable plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of 

reducing GHG emissions (Impacts GG-1: reduced). 




Overall, the Sliplining Alternative would have reduced impacts on climate change compared to 

the proposed project, because of the shorter construction timeframe and the substantially fewer 

truck trips. Impacts would remain less than significant, similar to the proposed project. 

Wind and Shadow 

The Sliplining Alternative would have no impacts related to wind and shadow, similar to the 

proposed project. The proposed PPSU project would result in upgrades to existing pipelines, 

which are located below ground in the vicinity of the sites and thus would not alter wind 

patterns. Additionally, the Sliplining Alternative would not propose any features that would 

substantially affect shadow patterns. Therefore, impacts to wind and shadow would be similar to 


Recreation 

Under the Sliplining Alternative, recreation impacts would be reduced compared to those 

associated with the proposed project. Similar construction and staging areas would be used 

compared to the proposed project, which would result in similar impacts to recreation facilities, 

including two golf courses and the athletic fields adjacent to the Peninsula High School; but the 

construction duration would be slightly shorter at the South San Francisco and San Bruno South 

sites (Impact RE-1: reduced). 

Therefore, overall impacts to recreation facilities would be reduced compared to the proposed 

project. Potential impacts would remain less than significant with mitigation, similar to the 



Under the Sliplining Alternative, impacts on utilities and service systems would be less than the 

proposed project. Because this alternative would result in substantially less excavation, the 

potential to disrupt nearby utilities through accidental damage would be reduced (Impacts UT-1 

and UT-2: reduced). With implementation of mitigation similar to that identified for the 

proposed project, impacts would remain less than significant with mitigation. 

Dewatering activities and pipeline testing for the proposed project would require approximately 

20 million gallons of water. It is estimated that the Sliplining Alternative would have similar 

requirements for dewatering. Therefore, impacts from the Sliplining Alternative are anticipated 

to be similar to the proposed project regarding water supply, and would be less than significant 

(Impact UT-3: similar). 

The Sliplining Alternative would require less off-haul of soils and construction debris due to the 

substantially smaller amount of excavation required, and because the existing pipelines would 

not be removed. Therefore, potential impacts related to compliance with waste statutes and 

landfill capacity would be reduced compared to the proposed project (Impacts UT-4 and UT-5: 

reduced). This alternative would still be required to implement some of the mitigation measures 

that require compliance with waste statutes and landfills; therefore, it is anticipated that impacts 

would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation, similar to the proposed project. 

Overall, the Sliplining Alternative would have reduced impacts on utilities and service systems. 




Public Services 

Similar to the proposed project, the Sliplining Alternative would have no impacts to public 

services. Potential incidents requiring law enforcement, fire protection, or emergency services 

could occur during construction of this alternative; however, any temporary increase in incidents 

would not exceed the capacity of local law enforcement, fire protection, and emergency facilities 

to such a degree that new or expanded facilities would be required. Therefore, impacts to public 

services would be similar to the proposed project. 


Under the Sliplining Alternative, impacts on biological resources would be similar to the 

proposed project. Tree removal could result in impacts to special-status wildlife, riparian habitat, 

and conflicts with tree protection ordinances, similar to the proposed project (Impacts BI-1, BI-2, 

and BI-4: similar). Impacts to jurisdictional waters would also be similar to the proposed project, 

because the Sliplining Alternative could affect the same waters of the United States and waters of 

the State as the proposed project (Impact BI-3: similar). 

Overall, the Sliplining Alternative would have similar impacts on biological resources compared 

to the proposed project. With implementation of mitigation similar to that identified for the 

proposed project, impacts would remain less than significant with mitigation. 


Under the Sliplining Alternative, impacts on geology and soils would be less than the proposed 

project. Impacts from loss of topsoil and erosion would be decreased under the Sliplining 

Alternative, because there would be substantially less excavation than under the proposed 

project at the South San Francisco, San Bruno South, and Millbrae sites (approximately 55 percent 

to 85 percent less excavation) (Impact GE-1: reduced). However, impacts from erosion and loss of 

topsoil would remain less than significant with mitigation, similar to the proposed project. 

Because this alternative entails seismic upgrades to the pipelines, similar to the proposed project, 

potential operations impacts from surface fault rupture, ground shaking, ground failure, and 

landslides would be addressed by the design of this alternative. However, because this 

alternative would provide a lower seismic reliability than the proposed PPSU project, it could 

result in greater impacts related to surface fault rupture, ground shaking, ground failure, and 

landslides (Impact GE-2 and GE-3: greater). The pipelines are not located on slopes that are 

subject to failure, or on expansive soils, and are not likely to become unstable (Impacts GE-4 

and GE-5: similar). These impacts would be less than significant, similar to the proposed project. 

Overall, on the whole, impacts related to geology and soils would be similar to impacts under 



Under the Sliplining Alternative, impacts on hydrology and water quality would be less than the 

proposed project. Similar to the proposed project, no significant changes to existing drainage 

patterns would result from construction of this alternative. The replaced pipeline sections would 

be designed to withstand fault movement, so that there would be no uncontrolled discharge of 




untreated chloraminated water from pipeline failure. Construction of the Sliplining Alternative 

would result in substantially less excavation than the proposed project. Due to the reduced area 

of disturbance associated with the sliplining procedure compared to the proposed project’s opentrench 

method, there would be less excavated spoils and construction debris (asphalt) and less 

potential for erosion and sedimentation (Impact HY-1: reduced). Water quality impacts related to 

construction activities would remain less than significant with implementation of mitigation 

requiring implementation of a stormwater pollution prevention plan, and implementation of 

related stormwater best management practices. Compared to the proposed project, this 

alternative would require less groundwater dewatering of the trenches, and would have a lower 

risk to water quality because of the reduction in excavated areas (Impacts HY-2 and HY-3: 

reduced). Impacts would remain less than significant. 

Similar to the proposed project, discharges would be necessary when the pipelines are drained 

during shutdown and startup activities, which include hydrostatic testing and disinfection. The 

volume of these discharges would be about the same as for the proposed project. Similar to the 

proposed project, treated water from the pipelines would be discharged in compliance with the 

Waste Discharge Requirements for the SFPUC Drinking Water Transmission System (San Francisco 

Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board Order No. R2-2008-0102), thereby avoiding adverse 

effects on water quality. Water quality impacts related to these discharges would be similar to those 

of the proposed project, and would remain less than significant (Impact HY-4: similar). 

Overall, the Sliplining Alternative would have reduced impacts on hydrology and water quality 

compared to the proposed project. 


Under the Sliplining Alternative, impacts on hazards and hazardous materials would be less than 

the proposed project. There is a low potential to encounter hazardous materials in the soil and 

groundwater during construction at the project sites. However, it cannot be determined with 

certainty that excavated materials would not contain potentially hazardous soil and/or 

groundwater wastes. Therefore, because the amount of excavated materials would be 

substantially less for the South San Francisco, San Bruno South, and Millbrae sites under this 

alternative, the potential likelihood to release such hazardous materials through excavation 

would be decreased (Impact HZ-1: reduced), although this impact would remain less than 

significant with implementation of mitigation similar to that identified for the proposed project. 

Construction of the Sliplining Alternative would require use of hazardous materials, such as 

petroleum fuels, lubricants, and gases. The accidental release of these materials could result in 

impacts to the environment, similar to the proposed project (Impact HZ-2: similar). 

Implementation of mitigation measures identified for the proposed project would also reduce 

these impacts to less than significant with mitigation. Because the use of hazardous materials 

during construction would be in compliance with applicable regulations, and because hazardous 

materials are likely not to be present in the soils or groundwater in the project area, construction 

activities would not result in the release of hazardous materials within 0.25 mile of a school 

(Impact HZ-3: similar). Similar to the proposed project, the alternative is located in the vicinity of 

the San Francisco International Airport, but construction activities would not interfere with 

airport operations (Impact HZ-4: similar). Additionally, the alternative would not impair 

implementation of emergency response or evacuation plans (Impact HZ-5: similar). 




Overall, the Sliplining Alternative would have reduced hazards and hazardous materials impacts 

compared to the proposed project, because of the reduced amount of excavation required and the 

corresponding decreased potential to encounter unknown hazards in the soils and/or groundwater. 

Mineral and Energy Resources 

The Sliplining Alternative would not result in impacts related to mineral or energy resources, 

similar to the proposed project. The project area is not located on lands with known mineral 

resources or in an area with a locally important mineral resource recovery site. Construction of 

the alternative and operations activities would not result in the use of energy resources in excess 

of standard construction and operation practices. Therefore, impacts to mineral and energy 

resources would be similar to the proposed project. 

Agriculture and Forest Resources 

Similar to the proposed project, the Sliplining Alternative would have no impacts to agriculture 

and forest resources. The project sites are not designated as farmland by the Farmland Mapping 

and Monitoring Program; zoned for agricultural uses or subject to a Williamson Act contract; 

located on lands zoned as forest land or timberland; or in the vicinity of forestry uses. The 

proposed project would also not directly or indirectly cause the conversion of farmland to 

nonagricultural use or forest land to nonforest use. Therefore, impacts to agriculture and forest 

resources would be similar to the proposed project. 

7.2.4.3 Conclusions for Alternative 2 

Under the Sliplining Alternative, impacts at the Colma and San Bruno North sites would be similar to 

the proposed project. Many of the potential impacts under the proposed project would be reduced at 

the South San Francisco, San Bruno South, and Millbrae sites. Although the severity or intensity of 

impacts would be reduced, mitigation measures similar to those identified for the proposed project 

would be required for each impact area, and the level of impacts would not be diminished such that 

potentially significant and unavoidable impacts would become less than significant with mitigation or 

that significant but mitigable impacts would become less than significant (without mitigation), except 

for approximately five residences on Courtland Drive at the San Bruno South site, where noise 

impacts would be reduced from significant and unavoidable with mitigation under the proposed 

project to less than significant with mitigation under Alternative 2. Overall, the Sliplining Alternative 

would have reduced impacts as summarized in Table 7-2 on the following page. 

Impacts related to biological resources, including impacts from tree removal required at the South 

San Francisco and Millbrae sites, would be similar to those identified under the proposed project 

because the project area, including the construction zone and staging areas would be the same as 

the proposed project. Additionally, impacts related to geology and soils would on the whole be 

similar to the proposed project; impacts related to soil erosion would be reduced but impacts 

related to surface fault rupture, ground shaking, ground failure, and landslides would increase 

under this alternative. However, many other construction-related impacts would be reduced 

because of differences in the sliplining construction method (compared to the open trench method 

that would be used for the proposed project). Because substantially less soils would be excavated 

and subsequently less off-haul of both spoils and construction debris, such as pipe materials, would 




Table 7-2 

Reduction in Impacts – Sliplining Alternative 

Reduced Impacts Related To 

Environmental Resource 

Decreased Amount 

of Excavation and/or 

Fewer Truck Trips 

Shorter 

Construction 

Durations 

Location of 

Sliplining Pits 

Land Use and Land Use Planning X X X 


X 

Transportation and Circulation X X 

Noise X X X 

Air Quality X X 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions X X 

Recreation X X 




X 

X 

X 

Sources: Manders, 2012a; PPSU project analysis, URS. 

be required for this alternative, impacts associated with excavation and truck trips would be 

reduced. Additionally, the slightly shorter construction duration at the South San Francisco and San 

Bruno South sites would result in reduced duration of impacts at these sites. 

The Sliplining Alternative would meet some of the project objectives, but would have a lower 

seismic reliability than the proposed PPSU project. Generally, impact levels would be the same or 

less than the proposed project, and in many cases, the intensity or severity of the impact would 

be reduced compared to the proposed project. However, because the reductions would be 

limited, no change would result to the overall significance determination for any impact (i.e. to 

reduce a significant and unavoidable impact to less than significant with mitigation, or to reduce 

a less than significant with mitigation impact to less than significant without mitigation). 

7.3 Comparison of Alternatives 

7.3.1 Comparison of Environmental Impacts 

To determine the environmentally superior alternative, both alternatives were evaluated with 

respect to their ability to avoid or substantially lessen significant environmental effects of the 

proposed project. Both significant environmental effects that would be caused by each alternative 

and significant environmental effects that would be caused by the proposed project were 

considered. Table 7-3 on the following pages outlines the overall impacts of the proposed project 




Table 7-3 

Comparison of the Environmental Impacts of the CEQA Alternatives 1 

Proposed 

Project 

Alternative 1 

No Project 

Alternative 

Alternative 2 

Sliplining 

Alternative 

Description 

Seismic upgrades 

to three SFPUC 

water 

transmission 

pipelines—SAPL2, 

SAPL3, and 

SSBPL—at five 

locations on the 


Peninsula. 

Construction 

techniques would 

be primarily open 

trench. 

No pipeline 

repair/ 

replacement 

unless pipeline 

failure (assumed). 

Sliplining of pipeline 

segments at selected 

project sites to reduce 

environmental 

impacts. Relies on 

pushing smaller new 

pipe inside existing 

pipe; would reduce 

construction noise, 

volume of excavation, 

and truck trips. 

Ability to Meet SFPUC’s Objectives 

IMPACTS: 


Would meet 

all project 

objectives. 

Would not meet 

any of the project 

objectives. 

Would meet some of 

the project objectives, 

but would have a 

lower seismic reliability 

than the proposed 

PPSU project. 

Impact LU-1 Temporary impacts on existing character and 

land use disruptions 

Impact C-LU Contribution to cumulative impacts on 

existing land uses 



Aesthetics 

Impact AE-2 New source of substantial light or glare LSM Greater (LSM) 3 Similar (LSM) 

Impact C-AE Contribution to cumulative impacts on scenic 

vistas, scenic resources, visual character, or light and glare 

LS Greater (SUM) Similar (LS) 


Impact CP-2 Archaeological resources LSM Greater (SU) Reduced (LSM) 2 

Impact CP-3 Paleontological resources LSM Greater (SU) Reduced (LSM) 2 

Impact CP-4 Human remains LSM Greater (SU) Reduced (LSM) 2 

Impact C-CP Contribution to cumulative impacts on 

cultural resources 



Impact TR-1 Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or 

policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the 

performance of the circulation system 





Table 7-3 


(Continued) 

Proposed 

Project 

Alternative 1 

No Project 

Alternative 

Alternative 2 

Sliplining 

Alternative 

Impact TR-2 Inadequate emergency access LS Greater (SU) Similar (LS) 

Impact TR-3 Safety of public roadways for vehicles, 

bicyclists, and pedestrians 

Impact C-TR Contribution to cumulative traffic increases 

and safety hazards on local and regional roads 



Noise 

Impact NO-1 Temporary increases in daytime noise levels SUM Greater (SU) Reduced (SUM) 2 

Impact NO-2 Nighttime noise levels SUM Greater (SU) Similar (SUM) 

Impact NO-3 Local general plan or noise ordinance standards SUM Greater (SU) Similar (SUM) 

Impact NO-4 Excessive groundborne vibration SUM Greater (SU) Similar (SUM) 

Impact C-NO Contribution to cumulative noise and 

vibration impacts 


Air Quality 

Impact AQ-1 Violate air quality standards LSM Greater (LSM) 3 Reduced (LSM) 2 

Impact AQ-2 Expose sensitive receptors to substantial 

pollutant concentrations 

LS Greater (LSM) Reduced (LS) 2 

Impact AQ-3 Create objectionable odors LS Greater (LSM) Reduced (LS) 2 

Impact C-AQ Contribution to cumulative air quality impacts LSM Greater (LSM) 3 Reduced (LSM) 2 

Recreation 

Impact RE-1 Temporarily degrade existing recreational uses LSM Greater (SU) Reduced (LSM) 2 

Impact C-RE Contribution to cumulative recreational impacts LS Greater (SU) Reduced (LS) 2 


Impact UT-1 Disruption of utility operations or accidental 

damage 


Impact UT-2 Relocation of regional or local utilities LSM Greater (SU) Reduced (LSM) 2 

Impact UT-3 Water supply availability LS Greater (SU) Similar (LS) 

Impact UT-5: Solid waste LSM Greater (SU) Reduced (LSM) 2 

Impact C-UT Contribution to cumulative impacts related to 

disruption or relocation of utilities 



Impact BI-1 Special-status wildlife species LSM Greater (SU) Similar (LSM) 

Impact BI-2 Coast live oak woodland, central coast riparian 

scrub habitat, or other sensitive natural community 


Impact BI-3 Jurisdictional waters LSM Greater (SU) Similar (LSM) 




Table 7-3 


(Continued) 

Proposed 

Project 

Alternative 1 

No Project 

Alternative 

Alternative 2 

Sliplining 

Alternative 

Impact BI-4 Local policies or ordinances protecting 

biological resources, including trees 

Impact C-BI Contribution to cumulative impacts on 

biological resources 




Impact GE-1 Soil erosion or the loss of topsoil LSM Greater (SU) Reduced (LSM) 2 

Impact GE-2 Geologic unit that is unstable or that would 

become unstable as a result of the project 

Impact GE-3 Expose people or structures to adverse effects 

involving surface fault rupture, groundshaking, ground 

failure, or landslides 

Impact C-GE Contribution to cumulative impacts related to 

geology and soils 





Impact HY-1 Violate water quality standards or waste 

discharge requirements or degrade water quality 

Impact C-HY Contribution to cumulative impacts on 

hydrology and water quality 




Impact HZ-2 Reasonably foreseeable upset and accident LSM Similar (LSM) Similar (LSM) 

conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into 

the environment 

Impact HZ-5 Interfere with emergency response plan or 

emergency evacuation plan 

LS Greater (SU) Similar (LS) 

Impact C-HZ Contribution to cumulative impacts related to 

hazards and hazardous materials 


Source: G&E/GTC Joint Venture, 2011; PPSU project analysis, URS. 

Notes: 

1 

Includes significant impacts of alternatives. 

2 

Although the impact conclusion does not change, the level or intensity of the impact would be reduced under this 

alternative. 

3 

Although the impact conclusion does not change, the level or intensity of the impact would be greater under this 

alternative. 


LSM = Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation 

SU = Significant and Unavoidable impact for which feasible mitigation is not available 





and the alternatives after mitigation, based on implementation of mitigation measures identified to 

reduce the PPSU project impacts. The table also identifies whether an alternative would have 

reduced impacts compared to the proposed project with respect to a specific resource (alternative 

is preferred); whether it would have greater impacts (project is preferred); or whether impacts 

would be similar (no clear environmental preference is apparent). The proposed project would 

result in significant unavoidable impacts from noise and vibration. The No Project Alternative 

would have significant unavoidable impacts to land use; cultural and paleontological resources; 

noise and vibration; transportation and circulation; recreation; utilities and service systems; 

biological resources; geology and soils; and hydrology and water quality. The Sliplining 

Alternative would have significant unavoidable impacts to noise and vibration, similar to the 


7.3.1.1 Alternative 1: No Project Alternative 

In the absence of a major earthquake along the San Andreas Fault, the No Project Alternative 

would avoid the significant unavoidable impacts resulting from construction of the proposed 

project. However, during a probable seismic event and subsequent pipeline rupture, the No 

Project Alternative could result in more severe impacts related to disruption of land uses, light 

and glare, irretrievable loss of cultural resources, construction-related noise (including 24-hour 

construction), disruption of utilities and services, discharge of chloraminated water due to 

pipeline rupture, erosion, degradation of water quality and biological riparian habitats, and 

interference with implementation of emergency response or evacuation plans. Also, emergency 

repairs would have additional adverse impacts related to the likely infeasibility of 

implementation of some mitigation that would protect resources due to the emergency nature of 

repairs. Potential impacts could include reduced waste diversion, resulting in greater amounts of 

construction-related wastes being disposed of at permitted waste disposal facilities. Depending 

on the severity of damage from pipeline rupture, the No Project Alternative would likely result in 

similar impacts to the proposed project related to tree removal, air pollutant emissions, 

construction truck trips, greenhouse gas emissions, and hazardous materials. Overall, the No 

Project Alternative would likely result in greater or more severe environmental impacts than the 


7.3.1.2 Alternative 2: Sliplining Alternative 

The Sliplining Alternative, which would occur only at the South San Francisco, San Bruno South, 

and Millbrae sites, would have reduced severity and intensity of impacts, compared to the 

proposed project and impacts at the Colma and San Bruno North sites would remain similar to 

the proposed project. Impacts would be reduced due to the decreased amount of soils to be 

excavated under this alternative construction method and due to the slightly reduced 

construction duration at the South San Francisco and San Bruno South sites. Because the 

sliplining method would leave the existing pipes in the ground, construction debris (old pipes) 

would be reduced as well. Therefore, truck trips would be reduced under this alternative. 

Resource areas with reduced impacts due to decreased excavation would include: cultural 

resources, transportation and circulation, utilities and service systems, geology and soils, 

hydrology and water quality, and hazards and hazardous materials. Additionally, resources with 

reduced impacts due to the shorter construction period at the South San Francisco and San Bruno 




South sites, fewer truck trips (due to reduced excavation), and location of sliplining excavation 

pits would include: land use and land use planning, noise, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, 

and recreation. 

Impacts related to biological resources, including impacts from tree removal, would be similar to 

those identified under the proposed project because the project area, including the construction 

zone and staging areas, would be similar to the proposed project. Impacts related to geology and 

soils would be reduced due to the reduction in excavation but impacts related to surface fault 

rupture, ground shaking, ground failure, and landslides would increase under this alternative 

because it would have a lower seismic reliability than the proposed PPSU project. 

The Sliplining Alternative would meet some of the project objectives, but would provide a lower 

seismic reliability than the proposed PPSU project because the welds for the liner pipe are 

considered to have a lower strength compared to new construction, where both sides of the pipe 

are accessible for welding (G&E/GTC Joint Venture, 2011). Generally, impacts would be the same 

as or less than the proposed project, and in many cases, the intensity or severity of the impact 

would be reduced compared to the proposed project. However, because the reductions would be 

limited, no change would result to the overall significance determination for any impact (i.e. to 

reduce a significant and unavoidable impact to less than significant with mitigation, or to reduce 

a less than significant with mitigation impact to less than significant without mitigation). 

7.3.2 Environmentally Superior Alternative 

The Sliplining Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, based on the alternatives 

analysis above. This alternative would reduce impacts at the South San Francisco, San Bruno 

South, and Millbrae sites, where significant and unavoidable impacts would occur under the 

proposed project. This alternative would reduce the duration of impacts at the South San 

Francisco and San Bruno South sites by approximately 0.5 month. Additionally, it would reduce 

the intensity and severity of impacts at some sensitive land uses due to the more limited extent of 

excavation and would reduce impacts related to truck trips due to the reduced amount of offhaul 

of spoils and construction debris required for the alternative. Under this alternative, the 

PPSU project as proposed would be implemented at the Colma site and San Bruno North site; 

therefore, impacts at these two sites would remain as described for the proposed project. 

Although this alternative would have significant and unavoidable impacts related to construction 

noise and vibration levels, these impacts would be less severe than the proposed project. Similar 

to the proposed project, the Sliplining Alternative would increase ambient noise levels and 

vibration during construction such that nearby sensitive land uses could be adversely affected 

and could result in exposure of these sensitive land uses to noise levels in excess of standards 

established in the local general plan or noise ordinance at the South San Francisco and Millbrae 

sites. Land uses would be temporarily disrupted due to the location of the staging area at the San 

Bruno South site, which would restrict access to community recreation facilities, and due to the 

noise and vibration impacts near sensitive land uses. 

Although the Sliplining Alternative would have many less-than-significant impacts with 

mitigation, similar to the proposed project, some of these impacts would be reduced either due to 

the reduced amount of excavation required for this alternative or due to the reduced number of 




truck trips or shorter construction duration. Resource areas that would have reduced impacts are: 

land use; cultural and paleontological resources; transportation and circulation; recreation; 

utilities and service systems; hydrology and water quality; and hazards and hazardous materials. 

The only significant impacts that would not be reduced under this alternative are impacts to 

biological resources and geology and soils, which would be similar to the proposed project. 

Additionally, impacts to air quality and greenhouse gas emissions, although less than significant, 

would be reduced under this alternative. Aesthetics, also less than significant, would be similar 

to the proposed project. 

Therefore, for the reasons described above, the Sliplining Alternative would have less overall 

environmental effects when taken as a whole and would be considered the environmentally 

superior alternative. 

7.4 Alternatives Identification and Screening 

Prior to the development of the PPSU project, the SFPUC conducted several background 

studies that identified the seismic hazards affecting SAPL2, SAPL3, and SSBPL in the Serra 

Fault crossing zones in San Bruno and Millbrae and the liquefaction zones in the Colma Valley 

(Colma and South San Francisco areas). An Alternatives Analysis Report (AAR) (G&E/GTC, 

2011) summarized the conditions assessment performed for the pipelines and identified 

vulnerable pipeline sections and viable alternatives for analysis. Seismic hazards used to assess 

the vulnerability of pipeline sections included fault crossings, landslides, ground shaking and 

liquefaction. The report developed engineering options to upgrade and/or replace the most 

vulnerable sections of the pipeline. Several design alternatives to the proposed project were 

considered in the AAR. A summary of these methods is described below and shown in 

Table 7-4 on the following page. 

As summarized in Section 7.5, Alternatives Considered but Rejected from Further Analysis, most 

of the design options developed by the SFPUC would not meet the seismic reliability goals of the 

proposed project or would result in constructability issues and greater environmental impacts 

than the proposed project, and therefore were not evaluated in detail in Section 7.2 as CEQA 

alternatives to the proposed project. Thus, these alternatives were rejected from further 

consideration. The design alternative selected for further analysis represents the alternative that 

would meet the project objectives and would have the fewest environmental impacts. During the 

scoping period for this EIR, the San Francisco Planning Department did not receive any 

comments or suggestions regarding alternatives to the project. 

7.5 Alternatives Considered but Rejected from Further 

Consideration 

Six alternatives were considered but were rejected from further consideration either because they 

would not meet the project goals or would not reduce environmental impacts compared to the 




Table 7-4 

Alternatives Considered But Rejected from Further Consideration 

Potential Alternative Identified 

Steel Pipe Inside a Corrugated Metal Pipe 

(San Bruno South and Millbrae sites) 

Pipe with Pre-formed Bulge Zone Inside a 

Corrugated Metal Pipe 

(San Bruno South and Millbrae sites) 

Fiber-wrap Pipe Joints and Encase Pipe 

Bends 

(Millbrae site) 

Isolation Valves 

(Millbrae site) 

Welded Steel Pipe 

(San Bruno North and San Bruno South 

sites) 

Relocation 

(all project sites) 

Ability to Achieve 

Project Goals 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Reason(s) for Rejection 

Similar or greater environmental 

impacts to the proposed project 

Increased cost compared to the 

proposed project 



Increased cost compared to the 

proposed project 

Would not meet project goals 

Would not meet project goals 



Substantially increased cost 

compared to the proposed project 

Substantially greater environmental 

impacts than the proposed project 

Significant constraints: land 

availability; new rights-of-way; 

would require approximately 

23 new wholesale customer 

connections 

Substantially increased cost 

compared to the proposed project 

Sources: G&E/GTC Joint Venture, 2011; Roche, 2011; PPSU project analysis, URS. 

proposed project, as described below and shown in Table 7-4. Five of these alternatives are 

design options that were considered in the AAR and one alternative is a location variation option. 

The ability of each alternative to achieve the project goals is summarized below. 

7.5.1 Steel Pipe Inside a Corrugated Metal Pipe Alternative (San 

Bruno South and Millbrae Sites) 

The installation of a thick-walled steel pipe inside a corrugated metal pipe was identified in the 

AAR as a potential construction method to address earthquake-related fault offsets and 

landslides where the pipeline crosses the Serra Fault. This alternative was focused on the San 

Bruno South site (SAPL2 and SAPL3) and the Millbrae site (SSBPL). This alternative would 

involve placing the existing pipe inside a larger diameter corrugated metal pipe. Under this 




scenario SAPL2, SAPL3, and SSBPL would remain with their current dimensions (54 inches, 

66 inches and 60 inches in diameter, respectively) and they would be placed in a 72- to 84-inchdiameter 

corrugated metal pipe. The benefit of this approach is that it allows the corrugated 

metal pipe to act as a sleeve, which allows the pipe to move — in a perpendicular direction to the 

pipe in the space created by the two different pipe diameters — when subject to fault offset. The 

AAR determined that this alternative would provide an equivalent seismic reliability to the 


This alternative would cost between 25 and 30 percent more compared to the proposed project 

(Parsons, 2011; Roche, 2012). The construction cost would be higher because it would involve the 

purchase of more materials (i.e., corrugated metal pipe in addition to steel pipe would need to be 

purchased). Additionally, more labor would be involved in slipping the steel pipe into the 

corrugated metal pipe sleeve compared to normal excavation and backfill for a steel pipe. 

This alternative would have greater environmental impacts than the proposed project as it would 

require transport of more materials (more truck trips). Additionally, it would result in similar 

noise impacts compared to the proposed project because it would require a similar amount of 

excavation of soils (along the entire length of the pipeline to be replaced). Because the steel pipe 

inside a corrugated metal pipe alternative would not reduce significant impacts and would have 

increased costs, this alternative was rejected from further analysis. 

7.5.2 Pipe with Pre-Formed Bulge Zone inside a Corrugated Metal 

Pipe Alternative (San Bruno South and Millbrae Sites) 

The installation of a pre-formed bulge zone inside a corrugated metal pipe was identified by the 

AAR as a potential construction method to address earthquake-related fault offsets and 

landslides where the pipeline crosses the Serra Fault, at the San Bruno South site (SAPL2 and 

SAPL3) and the Millbrae site (SSBPL). This alternative would involve using a welded steel pipe 

that has pre-formed bulge zones or bellows where the pipe transitions from its typical diameter 

to a larger diameter zone, which acts as an expansion/movement sleeve allowing the pipe to 

compress into the bellow. This assembly would then be put into a corrugated metal pipe that 

would allow movement of the entire pipeline. The AAR determined that this alternative would 

provide approximately equivalent seismic reliability compared to the proposed project. 

The estimated costs for this alternative would be between 33 and 35 percent more compared to 

the proposed project (Parsons, 2011; Roche, 2012). The construction cost would be higher because 

it would involve purchasing a custom steel pipe which has pre-formed bulge zones built in at the 

pipe manufacturer. Additionally, more materials (i.e., corrugated metal pipe in addition to 

custom steel pipe) would need to be purchased. Also, more labor would be involved in slipping 

the steel pipe into the corrugated metal pipe sleeve, in comparison to normal excavation and 

backfill for a steel pipe. 

The pre-formed bulge zone inside a corrugated metal pipe alternative would have greater 

environmental impacts than the proposed project as it would require transport of more materials 

(more truck trips), thereby resulting in greater traffic and air quality impacts. Additionally, it 

would result in similar noise impacts compared to the proposed project because it would require 

a similar amount of excavation of soils (along the entire length of the pipeline to be replaced), and 




would impact the same sensitive receptors as the proposed project. It would therefore result in a 

similar disruption of land uses from construction noise. Because this alternative would not 

reduce significant impacts and would have increased costs, this alternative was rejected from 

further analysis. 

7.5.3 Fiber-Wrap Pipe Joints and Encase Pipe Bends Alternative 

(Millbrae Site) 

Fiber-wrapping the pipe joints and encasement of pipe bends in reinforced concrete was 

identified by the AAR as a potential alternative at the Millbrae site (SSBPL). This alternative 

would be anticipated to accommodate an offset of up to 10 inches of fault displacement. This 

alternative would involve wrapping the existing joints of the pipe in Fiber Reinforced Polymer 

wrap using a coating system applied in layers. The Fiber Reinforced Polymer wrap would 

increase the hoop strength capacity of the pipe, giving it more strength in compression when 

subjected to fault offset. Additionally, the pipe bends would be encased in concrete. The benefit 

of this alternative is that it would require only the joints and bends of the pipeline to be 

excavated rather than the entire pipeline. However, because the AAR found it probable that the 

alternative would not allow the pipe to withstand the maximum fault offset of 24 inches 

anticipated at this site, this alternative would not meet the project’s basic objectives; therefore, 

this alternative was eliminated from further consideration. 

7.5.4 Isolation Valves Alternative (Millbrae Site) 

The AAR identified the installation of an isolation valve to protect the customer turnout and 

provide water in the event of pipeline failure at the fault crossing at the Millbrae site (SSBPL). 

This alternative would involve installing a 60-inch-diameter isolation valve upstream of the fault 

zone. The valve would be below grade, located in a concrete valve vault below the intersection of 

Banbury Lane and Helen Drive in Millbrae. The valve would be closed in the event of a leak at 

the fault and would protect the supply to those customers upstream of Banbury Lane (high zone 

of Millbrae), whose water is supplied primarily by the SSBPL line. This alternative would allow 

for continued delivery of water to the City of Millbrae from the Helen Drive turnout, while 

allowing the shutdown of the SSBPL pipeline in the event of a pipeline failure at the Serra Fault 

crossing. However, because this alternative would not allow for the flow of water to the 

Capuchino Value Lot after an earthquake event, it would not achieve the project’s reliability 

goals (see Section 7.2.1 above). Therefore, this alternative was eliminated from further 

consideration. 

7.5.5 Welded Steel Pipe Alternative (San Bruno North and San 

Bruno South Sites) 

The installation of welded steel pipe was identified in the AAR as an alternative to the proposed 

project. At the San Bruno South site (SAPL2), the AAR determined that installation of an 

approximately 2,000-foot-long welded steel pipe segment would provide high reliability after an 

earthquake event. However, the AAR also determined that installation of a shorter length of pipe 




(i.e., the proposed project, which proposed to replace approximately 1,108 feet of existing pipe at 

this site) would achieve the same reliability rating. 

At the San Bruno North site, the AAR examined an alternative to replace the segment of SAPL2 

with 140 feet of welded steel pipe where it extends through the tunnel. However, the AAR 

determined that this alternative would cost 185 percent more than the proposed project (Parsons, 

2011; Roche, 2012) and was not required to meet the reliability goals due to ground shaking at the 

site. 

Because the welded steel pipe alternative would require the replacement of a longer length of 

pipeline, it would have greater environmental impacts than the proposed project. It would 

require transport of more materials (more truck trips) and a greater amount of excavation of soils. 

Because this alternative would have increased environmental impacts and would have increased 

costs, this alternative was rejected from further analysis. 

7.5.6 Relocation Alternative (All Project Sites) 

The relocation of the existing pipelines to avoid crossing faults on the Peninsula was also 

considered as an alternative to address the hazards of earthquake fault offset (Roche, 2011). Two 

faults are known to extend along the Peninsula in the project vicinity, the San Andreas Fault and 

the Serra Fault. The San Andreas Fault extends north-westerly along Highway 35 to Mussel Rock 

Park on the Pacific coast between Pacifica and San Francisco. The Serra Fault, although generally 

parallel to Interstate 280, is not adjacent to the highway along the entire fault and is located east 

of the highway in several locations. The relocated SAPL2, SAPL3, and SSBPL would be 

constructed generally parallel to these faults and would extend between the two faults in order to 

avoid crossing the faults. The relocated SAPL2 and SAPL3 would extend approximately 10 miles 

and the relocated SSBPL would extend approximately 7.8 miles from the Harry Tracy Water 

Treatment Plant to the Sunset Reservoir. 

Because this alternative would be located outside of the existing SFPUC right-of-way, it would 

require the acquisition of new land and negotiation of new rights-of-way and would result in 

numerous environmental impacts associated with constructing new pipelines for approximately 

17.8 miles. The design of the alignments under this alternative would be challenging due to the 

presence of existing development along this alignment and the need to cross major roadways. In 

addition, new wholesale customer connections would need to be installed along the new 

alignments: SAPL2 and SAPL3 would require approximately 16 connections and SSBPL would 

require approximately 7 connections. Construction of these connections would entail similar 

challenges to those described for the relocation of the pipelines. Therefore, because the relocation 

alternative would have substantially increased environmental impacts, substantially increased 

costs, and real estate and other logistical constraints, this alternative was rejected from further 

analysis. 







GTC (Geotechnical Consultants, Inc.), 2010. Draft Geotechnical Interpretive Report, Peninsula 

Pipelines Seismic Upgrade, CS 101, SF10016B, December. 

GTC (Geotechnical Consultants, Inc.), 2011. Final Geotechnical Data Report, Peninsula Pipelines 

Seismic Upgrade, CS 101, SF10016B, March. 

Manders, Heather, 2012a. Personal e-mail communication between Heather Manders, PPSU 

Project Engineer, SFPUC, and Hannah Young, URS. June 28. 

Manders, Heather, 2012b. Personal e-mail communication between Heather Manders, PPSU 

Project Engineer, SFPUC and Hannah Young, URS. July 18. 

Parsons, 2011. CUW36702 Peninsula Pipeline Seismic Upgrade Project, Conceptual Engineering 

Report, Estimate Validation, prepared for SFPUC. December 5. 




Project Manager, SFPUC, and Hannah Young, URS. June 19. 





CHAPTER 8 

 

8.1 EIR Authors 

Planning Department, City and County of San Francisco 

Environmental Planning Division 

1650 Mission Street, Suite 400 

San Francisco, CA 94103 

 

 

 

Steven H. Smith, AICP – Environmental Coordinator 

Paul Maltzer – Senior Environmental Planner 

Sarah Jones – Acting Environmental Review Officer 

Office of the City Attorney, City and County of San Francisco 

City Hall Room 234 

1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place 


 

Lori Wider – Deputy City Attorney 

8.2 EIR Consultants 

URS Corporation (Prime Consultant) 

Post Montgomery Center 

One Montgomery Street, Suite 900 


 

 

 

Marty Czarnecki, PE – Principal-In-Charge 

Denise Heick – Project Manager 

Hannah Young, AICP – Deputy Project Manager 

URS Corporation Participants: 

 

 

Vivien Arnold (Graphics) 

Paul Burge, INCE BD Cert (Senior Noise and Vibration Advisor) 



8. EIR Authors and Consultants 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Alana Callagy (Public Services, Utilities and Service Systems, Visual Resources) 

Anne Connell, PE (Hydrology and Water Quality) 

Emilia Dicharry (GIS) 

Beverly Epstein (Word Processing) 

Mark Hale (Cultural Resources – Archaeology/Permitting) 

Jeremy Hollins (Cultural Resources – Architectural History) 

Robert Horwath, PG, REA (Cultural Resources – Paleontology) 

Roxana Khakpour (Technical Editing) 

Hiroko Koike (Graphics) 

Leroy Laurie (Cultural Resources – Archaeology) 

Kirsten Lawrence (GIS) 

Steve Leach (Senior Permitting Advisor) 

Derek McCulloch (Technical Editing) 

Ray Rice, PG, CEG (Soils, Geology, and Seismicity) 

Tim Rimpo (Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases) 

Dina Robertson (Senior Biological Resources Advisor) 

Catherine Short (Project Coordinator) 

Alissa Stillman (Environmental Coordinator) 

Avanti Tamhane (Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases) 

Jon Tamimi (Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases) 

Maria Wada (Plans and Policies) 

AEW Engineering Inc. 

55 New Montgomery St, Suite 722 


 

 

Ken Leung, PhD, PE, REA (Hazardous Materials and Waste) 

Randall Young (Hazardous Materials and Waste) 

BioMaAS 

24552 Long Court 

Hayward, CA 94545 

 

 

 

Steve Powell (Biological Resources/Project Manager) 

Chris Thayer (Biological Resources – Wetlands/Plants) 

Sandra Etchell (Biological Resources – Wildlife/Permitting) 

LCW Consulting 

3990 20th Street 


 

Luba Wyznyckyj (Transportation and Circulation) 



8. EIR Authors and Consultants 

Mara Feeney & Associates 

19B Beaver Street 


 

Mara Feeney (Public Involvement, Population and Housing, Land Use, and Recreation) 

Vibro-Acoustic Consultants (VACC) 

490 Post Street, Suite 1427 


 

 

 

J. Byron Davis (Noise) 

Tyler Rynberg (Noise) 

Ahmad Bayat (Noise) 

8.3 Project Sponsor 


Bureau of Environmental Management 

525 Golden Gate Avenue, 6th Floor 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yin Lan Zhang – Environmental Project Manager 

Calvin Huey – Project Manager 

Heather Manders – Project Engineer 

Sam Young – Project Engineer 

Alison Kastama – Primary Communications 

Daniel Jaimes – Communications 

Deborah Craven-Green – Permitting Manager 

Dan Ficker – GIS 




PLACE 

POSTAGE 

HERE 

Steven Smith, AICP 

San Francisco Planning Department 

Environmental Planning Division 

1650 Mission Street, Suite 400 


PLEASE CUT ALONG DOTTED LINES 

PLEASE RETURN THIS POSTCARD TO REQUEST A COPY OF 

THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 

(NOTE THAT THE DRAFT EIR PLUS THE RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 

DOCUMENT CONSTITUTE THE FINAL EIR) 

______________________________________________________________________ 

Revised10/5/12

_________________________________________________________________ 

REQUEST FOR FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 

Peninsula Pipelines Seismic Upgrade Project, 

Planning Department Case No. 2011.0123E 

Check one box: 

Please send me a copy of the Final EIR on CD. 

Please send me a paper copy of the Final EIR. 

Signed: 

Name: 

Street: 

City: State: Zip: 

_________________________________________________________________ 

Revised10/5/12

Draft EIR - San Francisco Planning Department

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?